Agreed, if a bear can eat a person why can’t I eat a person?!
Not sure if this is about carnivores or big, hairy gays, but hey, whatever suits you.
I mean, you can… just don’t let law enforcement find out.
Ask Jeffrey Dahmer.
OP will be real dangerous when he learns fish also don’t ask for consent.
They don’t? I’ve been wasting my time.
Nobody is saying that fish are moral agents that can empathise with other beings. That doesn’t man that they’re not moral subjects; the ability to understand that one is causing harm is not a prerequisite for the ability to suffer oneself. I think everyone knows this intuitively, but it does feel good to have our less moral habits be justified by memes that we would otherwise find to be illogical.
You are right, but I believe putting a cease to life is not inherently bad. If we could kill animals without letting them feel anything, that wouldn’t really be bad.
I mean sure, but the animal agriculture industry is typically inhumane and cruel to animals while they’re still alive, because it’s more profitable that way. Minimising the suffering they feel when they die is not going to do much really.
Ethical consideration has to extend to more than just painless death to be worth a damn. I can’t walk into an infant ward and painlessly murder infants in their sleep for a reason.
Yes, the reason being they are human.
Why is that a reason?
Because most people view it as morally wrong to kill another human.
This is why we should be killing pigs with nitrogen, rather than CO2. CO2 is how a mammal determines it is suffocating, meanwhile the air is mostly made up of nitrogen so we ignore it. However, it’s precisely this which makes it dangerous to humans working nearby (also the fact that CO2 is heavier than air so you can have open pits), and it’s ruled too expensive to do it humanely.
Or we could you know just not gas and kill pigs.
I like bacon. Also there’s something to be said of the simple fact that almost all life eats other life. Why is plant life lesser than animal life to you?
However, the day they start selling lab grown bacon I will gladly switch to that.
Because life is not the most important factor to me. Sentience is.
But let’s entertain the idea life was the most important factor. Raising animals to eat them kills way more plant life than just eating plants directly as you need to clear a ton of land and grow a ton of plant just to feed all these animals you’re raising. So even if that was the differentiating factor not exploiting other non human animals would be the way to go as you would preserve more life.
Liking something to me is not a solid argument to exploit another sentient being. If I was saying that I liked kicking dogs it would not make it ok to do so for example.
I didn’t say preservation of all life was the most important factor. I said almost all life eats other life.
There’s a big difference between kicking a dog and eating food.
You’ve clearly asked me why I considered plant life less than animal life which I answered. I then went further and showed that this question was actually irrelevant to the point I was making because even if I were to consider it as equal or more important I should still plants instead of animal products.
There is no difference between the two when not in a survival situation. One is done for taste buds pleasure the other might be done because you enjoy kicking dogs.
Actually I would dare say that kicking a dog is better than killing and eating them.At least I know I’d prefer getting kicked rather than killed and eaten.
We both know that’s not going to happen. If I want to have bacon, would you rather me quickly and painlessly kill the pig, or use a blunt butter knife to kill them?
I sincerely believe it’s going to happen. Furthermore of course when presenting between two horrible choices I would the choose the less horrible option. Fortunately the choice is not between these two it’s actually, “Would you rather me quickly and painlessly kill the pig, use a blunt butter knife or not kill them”. I think when not forgetting the third option it’s clear it’s the better one.
All I can say is that you’re much more of an optimist than I.
Maybe we should eat you instead of the pig. I’m pretty sure the pig does not want bacon.
Thanks, now I know you’re completely clueless about even the most basic things. Pigs will happily eat bacon.
Happily? Lol
And if someone did that to you?
They wouldn’t be able to think about it because they’d be dead.
By eating vegetables you are doing harm anyway, they are living organisms after all.
Even if we grant that plant “pain” is 100% morally equivalent to the pain of other beings (it isn’t, and you don’t earnestly believe that), we still have to eat them as a matter of biology, since humans aren’t producers and must consume nutrients from other life. It’s the same reason we can’t pass moral judgment on a carnivore like a lion for eating a Zebra.
Morality depends on culture, what is wright in one culture is wrong in another. This is easy to see and pretty obvious, unless that you are some kind of supremacist that thinks that your beliefs are the only valid. If your problem is pain you can kill the animal with one shot in the head and it will be painless, some farmers do this in order to avoid suffering.
“Bro I really wanna eat your dog bro. Bro it’s my culture bro just let me take a little bite bro I swear it’s the most delicious thing you’ve ever tasted. Bro just let me eat your dog bro, what are you some kinda racist?”
I am curious. Do you believe that humans has always had the option to not eat animals?
What I am asking is, is there some point during the evolution of homo sapience where it shifted from being morally acceptable to being morally wrong to eat other animals?
I’m not the same person, but it’s not about our physical evolution imo. It’s about advances in agriculture, our understanding of nutrition and ability to supplement or fortify foods with things like vitamin B12. Without those things, trying to cut out all animal products would probably be a terrible idea. With them, it becomes a viable choice for people with a good understanding of nutrition and without health problems that clash with veganism.
Morality depends on culture. What appeared through evolution is culture, but no one culture or the right culture. What is right in one culture is wrong in another one.
Common mistake, but plants are not moral subjects. If you harm any animal, even an insect, it will respond in ways that you or I would; fleeing, retaliating, or generally just panicking. I think you already understand that plants do not (although they do have biochemical adaptations to sense and respond to stress).
While plants don’t possess some of the superior organs of animals, we’re constantly being surprised by how much they actually sense and communicate. I wouldn’t discount the similarities between the two kingdoms as being lesser than their differences just yet.
Ants only “have biochemical adaptation to sense and respond to stress”.
Other people have pointed out the differences between plants and most animals, but it’s also worth noting that livestock need to eat plants. Because energy is wasted between each stage in a food chain, an omnivorous diet likely kills more plants anyway.
Something needs to die for you to survive, what and how much is up to your individual tolerance for input/output ratio.
Death and suffering is a natural state of being in nature. I can reduce it, but I still need to survive.
I hate fishing. I don’t need to fish in my current station. If I did, I would fish.
Exactly. Pretty common misconception about vegan ideology. Vegans don’t think people in developing nations have a moral imperative to change their ways because they don’t have an alternative.
I don’t need to eat meat, so I don’t.
I genuinely wasn’t aware of this. Have never heard that argument made.
So their position is basically that as soon as you have a sufficiently developed supply chain to buy refrigerated lab-grown or fake meat and get it home before it smells like a rotten protein shake, that’s what you should do? But until that happens, killing animals is ok?
Nah, you don’t necessarily need lab grown or fake meat to have a healthy delicious varied vegan diet. Legumes like chickpeas, different kinds of beans and lentils as well as soy products can provide enough protein and variety if you put some effort into your cooking. You do need B12 supplements on a vegan diet though, as well as some specific nuts and seeds to cover omega 3. So those can be a problem if there’s not a lot of variety in the stores near you and you can’t order it online for whatever reason.
I don’t understand why milk is avoided. You are not necessarily harming the animal.
Maybe not necessarily the dairy cow herself, but she needs to be pregnant about once per year so she doesn’t stop producing milk. That means that the calves inevitably need to be slaughtered (as well as older dairy cows) or else the herd would keep growing year after year.
Not to mention the mothers are distressed that their babies have been taken away from them. It’s heartbreaking to hear them screaming when they know another calf has be taken, and won’t come back.
Exactly. If people reading this don’t see the moral disconnect here, think back to how the US administration handled the southern border and the influx of immigrants a few years ago. Children were taken from families without any regard for keeping said families together. It’s devastating no matter the species it happens to.
Never mind the practices that go into ensuring that they become pregnant.
I’m not a vegetarian, but I avoid lactose in general as my bowels get upset if I drink milk in excess. So it’s either buttermilk or some vegan alternative.
Oat milk is pretty good. Has its own distinct taste tho, it tastes a bit like a hazelnut flavored milk drink. Almond and soy milk are pretty nasty tho.
I will happily drink any woman’s milk if she’s offering, but it’s actually extremely weird that y’all steal cow milk.
I think it’s extremely weird that you would happily drink any woman’s milk.
But it is MUCH less weird than drinking bovine lactate and somatic cells.
I’ve gotten in so many heated debate on that one, as someone who grew up on a dairy farm. People see the gross factory farms in the US and get incredibly offended at me “lying” by claiming that plenty of farms are not like that, and it just comes down to ethical sourcing.
I’m not sure there is anything ethical about forcefully impregnating female cows for our gain.
Just think if we thought doing so was ethical for humans. Rape, the sex slave trade, etc. would be morally acceptable.
They’re animals. Artificial insemination is no more or less rape than any other means of reproduction. Bulls don’t exactly get consent, or give a shit if the cow is actively resisting for that matter. This is an instance where nature is more fucked up than what happens on farms, not less.
Uh, I only eat fake meat once every few weeks and that’s just for fun. I can live off of beans and rice just fine and it’s literally cheaper than meat lol
Not sure if rice and beans ticks all nutrients. Add potatoes and you’re safe.
Oh yeah definitely! Also wheat, oats, nuts, vegetables, mushrooms, etc. I’m just saying, fake meat is a treat and not really necessary at all.
So, like, your trip into town, do you take the short bus right through death valley to get there, or do you walk?
It’s about reducing harm imho. So if you can reduce overall harm by cutting one of your friend’s arm, do that.
Yup that’s why I still buy clothes from sweatshops with kids working in them.
In all seriousness you’re right, but I believe people have a much lower tolerance than they think they do, but they just avoid thinking about it
Ignorance is bliss, you’re absolutely right.
In my experience I need to kill 1 large cow every 2 years to personally survive. That’s good, because that’s about my personal limit for how long I’m happy to have a cow in my freezer without charging it rent.
I need to kill an absolutely obscene number of avocados, tomatoes and other fruits and vegetable too otherwise that cow will not last me 2 years. Those are the screams that truly bother me. The daily cries of my vegetables going to slaughter.
You see, I’m not even sure if you’re:
- a fanatic vegan
- a fanatic meat eater
- just a troll
Gotta applaud you for that
I have been all of those things at various points in my life.
I really struggled with the vegan lifestyle. I can’t really eat bread or pasta because they upset my guts, and I hate potatoes. As a result, most of the free kicks in terms of energy density were off the table.
I’m a pretty big guy, and I have a super active job and active hobbies. I ended up having to eat an inhuman amount of roughage to get to the point where I stopped losing weight.
Further still I constantly felt as if I were actively fermenting some kind of wicked brew inside me. I could NOT stop farting. For almost 12 months I lived with this. All the time: In work meetings, in bed with my wife, in my motorcycle gear, in the work truck…farting. Worst of all was in the shower. I’d let a dirty vegan fart rip through sheer necessity, already knowing that the hot water would keep pounding it down and recirculating it through my nostrils but not being able to do anything about it. It was in the shower one day where I burst into tears from chewing my own farts at four o’clock in the morning that I decided I’d had enough.
I then went in completely the opposite direction and ate nothing BUT meat for 3 months. All of my digestive symptoms cleared up, my skin and hair looked amazing and I’d developed the ability to chase down wild game in the dead of night. Overall though I didn’t feel all that healthy and I could not stand the sight of another plate of meat so I threw that in the bin too and went back to being an omnivore.
At some point during this whole charade I hooked up with one of my rural neighbours who offered to sell me half a beast. Here’s where the 2 year thing comes from. Most people do not realise how much meat is in a cow. It is a fucking shitload.
HALF a cow easily fed me for an entire year when I mixed it with a wide array of vegetables, eggs, nuts and legumes - and I gave a heap of it away!
Therefore, I have had to accept that the cost of sustaining my life on this planet is 0.5 large cows per year. I do my best to return that value or greater to the world every year, and one of my acts of service is making confusing internet posts on forums that I don’t remember signing up for.
Factory farming is deplorable and extremely difficult to avoid when you shop at grocery stores. The fact that it has to exist as an industry at all whispers to me that there might just be a few too many billion omnivores on this planet to feed. My own personal problems stem from the fact that I’ve contributed to that issue: there are now 4 mouths to feed in my house! They don’t need as much meat in their diet as I do, but that still increases my household footprint above 0.5 cows per year.
If I look out of the window behind me right now, I can see old Bessy lounging by the dam in a paddock filled with lush green grass. Sometimes birds land on her but she doesn’t seem to mind, she’s pretty chill like that. She has a deep love of carrots but is unreasonably afraid of whole cabbages. I assume they make her fart.
I’ve watched Bessy enjoy life for the last 2 years, but come mid spring a loud report will echo off the hillside. I will have to deal with the mess, and the emotional upset of my children who haven’t quite mastered the art of passive detachment just yet.
One day when they are old enough, they will have to participate in the butchering if they want to eat meat. I expect I will raise a household of vegetarians and I’m ok with that. They don’t mind collecting the chicken’s eggs and we usually have at least 4 or 5 who survive their free range life long enough to reproduce. We don’t eat a lot of chickens because the maths isn’t very good.
That sounds like one hell of a journey.
Also I agree that factory farming is a poison we should eradicate. Everything about that process is as harmful as it can get to everything involved. The animals are in unnecessary pain from disease and lack of space. The ground gets poisoned by the sheer amount of manure if not from chemicals they use to reduce disease. Our antibiotics get less and less effective because we waste them “healing” ill animals that wouldn’t have gotten ill in the first place were they not cramped together like that. On top of that the meat usually tastes like shit because the unbalanced diet of the animals (usually manifests as “watery” meat).
My parents and I decided to cut down on meat consumption and instead get less but more expensive meat from a local butcher. Tastes a lot better and surprisingly we don’t even want as much meat anymore. Where previously a piece of bread had to have 2 layers of sausage on it to taste like anything now it only takes 1 layer of sausage that’s cut thinner.
Meat isn’t even the only food affected by those problems, we’ve had a similar experience with Pasta. The ones bought in stores doesn’t sate because it’s stretched with cheap ingredients, now we get it from a friend who runs an Italian delicacy store and despite the pasta costing 2x as much we run cheaper because we only need 1/4 to 1/3 as much per person.
By this logic, is it fair game to eat people who eat animals?
Only humans that eat other humans.
Why can’t i eat humans who are “OH YEAH ya’ll dawg i shot A BEAR YEAH!!” and then didn’t eat it?
Because hunting is necessary to keep the balance of species in the wilderness in check. That’s why you cannot shoot everything at any time.
For example, wild boars are a huge problem because they tend to absolutely demolish their environment and then move to a different spot, rinse and repeat. Thus, you have to keep their numbers down to actually protect the wilderness.
If someone shoots a bear out of season, that’s illegal and you ahould report him.
Huh, interesting you can still see that comment. I was sort of drunk and being flippant and I don’t actually remember what I wrote (and I can’t see it now!).
You consider humans superior in intellect and ability compared to all other animals yet can’t grasp the fact that some humans have chosen to use said superior intellect and ability to avoid killing other animals?
You consider humans superior in intellect and ability compared to all other animals
Does he?
Isn’t that usually the argument that anti-vegans use? That we’re the top predator due to our intelligence and technology and therefore we have an intrinsic right to the lives of other animals?
Yeah they have definitely tried that angle in the past
That would be an incredibly bad argument. Because it’s not a motive, it’s just descriptive. “we’re at the top so we have the right” it’s just a claim we make for ourself without considering how we got there… and what if a smarter, more advanced alien race would come down to earth and conquer us? Would they agree that since they are top of the chain now they have “the right” to slaughter us? Obviously not. So then we would claim: “we’re smart! Look, we know math. And love… we also feel pain.”. So these are important to us.
Exactly. Animals want to live as much as we do.
Nope. My argument is simple. Steak tastes good.
Honestly that’s a better argument. At least it’s truthful and shows your real priorities and isn’t trying to get fake philosophical as a cover.
How come fish can eat their own offspring but we can’t do the same to ours?
Have you ever tried eating a baby? No?
Don’t knock it until you’ve tried it.
Fish eating fish doesn’t lead to ecological disturbance. Humans have put multiple species on the verge of extinction.
Humans have put multiple species on the verge of extinction.
That is a slight understatement:
We’ve had some help though, i think i read that something like 1/3 of all human caused extinctions are because we keep bringing cats with us wherever we go, and letting them roam free in ecosystems that didn’t have any equivalent predator, leading to stories like this https://www.thevintagenews.com/2019/03/25/species-extinct/
i read that something like 1/3 of all human caused extinctions are because we keep bringing cats with us
Do you have a source for that? Intuitively 1/3 of all species extinctions (keep in mind this in general includes plants and other kingdoms of life, not just animals) sounds far too high imo. Maybe you have read that number in a slightly different context, like bird deaths in urban areas, or perhaps in a more specific context similar to the one in your link? Don’t get me wrong, like your link shows, (house) cats can easily have a devastating effect on the local wildlife, in particular birds and small mammals or reptiles (wikipedia has an article on the topic, although I didn’t find anything like your numbers in it). But as far as I know the major ways in which humans have caused extinctions are historically overhunting (mostly affecting large birds and mammals), habitat loss in particular since the advent of agriculture, and more recently of course the effects of the climate crisis since the industrial revolution.
I think you’re spot on there, this was the only thing i could find that was close to what i remembered reading, and it’s speaking about extinctions of bird, mammal and reptile species, where cats are behind roughly one third of the extinctions: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/extinction-countdown/worst-invasive-predators/
Sorry for late response
Hold on, the link you posted says 10 to 100 times more than the natural background extinction rate. That’s very far from "any of the previous mass extinctions in the history of the Earth.
No, it says
100 to 1,000 times higher than the background extinction rate
both in the general intro and in the “Extinction rate” section, and
10 to 100 times higher than in any of the previous mass extinctions in the history of Earth
in the “Extinction rate” section (both verbatim quotes from its first sentence).
Oh, dropped a digit. Should have just taken that nap I was gunning for. My mistake!
The difference is that the fish needs to eat the other fish. We don’t need ANY animal products. So every killed animal suffered and lost their life for 10min of taste for us that we didn’t need. Being vegan is so easy in 2023.
taste
what about vitamins? proteins and other nutrients
like omega 3 fatty acid majorly found in fishes
There are plenty of plant sources of Omega 3. Flax seeds, walnuts, soybeans, and canola oil all have decent amounts of omega 3 in them. As for protein, legumes generally have a bunch.
Really, the only thing a vegan needs to supplement is B12, but even that gets added to a bunch of stuff like breakfast cereals and plant milks if you consume those.
Flax seeds, walnuts, soybeans, and canola oil all have decent amounts of omega 3 in them
They also take an enormous amount of resources to cultivate and process at industrial scale.
Wait until you learn what cattle gets fed. Spoiler: it is soy
Wait until you learn that industrial 'murica isn’t the entirety of the planet.
I am not american and I dont want to be one. The feed for animals raised for their meat in the EU and a lot of other countries that have industrial animal farms is comprised out of several plants and nutrient supplements, and a big part of that feed is soy and corn, both things that are grown mostly to feed animals.
How does one milk a plant?
You can make your own plant milk usually by soaking/boiling nuts/seeds in water and then blending that together. Some people use juicers for this, and then some people run the blended liquid through a filter to remove any bits. Cashew milk is lovely if homemade!
But why call in Milk then? Shouldnt it be called Nut juice or Seed juice?
You’ll have to ask the people who started calling them milks hundreds of years ago.
They have a lot more in common with dairy milk than they do juice. And they’re also commonly used as dairy milk alternatives. Plant milk is a much better descriptor even if juice might be more “accurate”.
I do it to piss off dairy farmers specifically. They hate it that I get to call it plant milk and that’s really funny to me.
You can take them as supplements. It’s the same for your body. Oh and you are already doing that, because they give supplements to the animals they raise and kill, we are just eliminating the middleman.
very natural
Cyanide occurs naturally. Water can be made in a lab by mixing Hydrogen and Oxygen and applying heat.
Is Cyanide good for you when occurring naturally and water bad for you when artificially synthesized?
no. But it is also not the case that nature intended for us to consume artificially synthesized anything
Natural is such a stupid argument. Is it natural for us to use a smartphone? Sit in a car and drive around? Work 8h a day instead of being with your peer group? Breed a fast growing special kind of animal, feed it with chemical ingredients and plants that don’t grow here only to eat them? Eat processed sugar? I think you get where I am going. Stop using this bullshit argument and take some supplements, your body will thank you.
I’m not saying that supplements are bad. What I am saying is that getting those things from their original source is not bad either. And no argument will get me to see it as such. You can have your supplements, it doesn’t affect me. But I will not feel guilty of doing what nature always intended me to do: i.e. eat stuff
nature intended
Nature doesn’t intend anything, it simply is. We are, in the grand scheme of things, not separate from nature, and in this sense everything we do is natural. If you’re using “natural” to distinguish things from the results of human civilization, then eating animal products stemming from animal agriculture is just as “unnatural” as supplements, as both are products of civilization.
Are you a nudist?
Worth noting that many non-vegans are vitamin deficient and some medical authorities, including the UK’s, even recommend that everyone take vitamin D supplements. Also, please reconsider using your Internet connection, that isn’t very natural either.
as I said to the other guy, I’m not saying not natural is bad. But what op is implying is that getting the same stuff from natural sources is bad. That I just don’t agree with. It’s just the natural order of things. I have other options, yes, but I don’t consider the default natural source of things to be bad, so I don’t feel the need to switch. Animals eat animals all the time. And they don’t do it “humanely” either.
Animals don’t have the options we do. That argument fails.
Plus, that argument could be used to justify rape and murder. Perfectly natural. They don’t breed humanely.
What if the animals just ate plants instead?
Why is it worse to get things from less natural sources? Ignoring that everybody get some of their vitamins from less natural sources, e.g. animals injected with B12, cereals fortified with iron, water and toothpaste with fluoride, synthesised morphines instead of smoking opium - would you say these things are bad too because they are less natural? And if so, why?
Also, do you take all of your moral code from the worst things animals do? I hold myself to a higher standard and don’t eat my kids, rape, or fling shit at each others.
never said it was worse. what I did say is it’s not better either
Those factory farmed animals are further away from “natural” than a smartphone
Whataboutism
This isn’t whataboutism. Whataboutism isn’t about using the words “what about”, it’s about misdirecting the conversation to a seemingly related but actually an unrelated topic in order to counter argue the point. It’s a sub-type of ad-hominem attack, a fallacy.
The person you’re responding to is directly answering why people need to eat fish (I’m not validating the claim, just explaining) with sarcastic questions starting with what about.
Dude actually said “what about….”
Again, the wording is not the issue
Guy says “whatabout” and goes on to bring up something else to compare, and you’re saying it’s not a whatabout?
ROFL!
He’s not bringing something else to compare. You can rephrase the discussion like this:
Claim: We don’t need to eat fish. It is not necessary for humans.
Counter claim: we need to eat fish because humans need nutrients such as omega 3 fatty acids.
This is a direct dispute. The claim and counter claims have not been changed. They are both directly on topic.
Here is an example of whataboutism.
Person1: Biden says 1 + 2 = 4! Biden is wrong!
Person2: But Trump said 1 + 2 = 1000000! He’s even more wrong!This argument does not address the claim that Biden is right or wrong. He does not talk about the problem. Person2 is misdirecting by bringing a separate person as form of counter attack. They’re both wrong. Trump being more wrong does not validate Biden’s incorrect answer. Like I said, whataboutism is a subtype of ad hominem attack.
It’s also possible person2 could’ve said: What about Trump? He said, 1 + 2 = 1000000!
It’s easy to formulate whataboutism by using the words “what about”, and it is done so commonly. That’s why it is called whataboutism. But again, what is being said is important, not how it is said.
A person3 could say: What about 3?
This is not whataboutism. He’s showing what is his side to the argument. Even if the person3 gave the wrong answer like “what about 2?” It is still not whataboutism as they are still talking about the problem rather than misdirecting.
Edit: Grammar
“Whataboutism” was invented by the british to say whenever the irish talked about oppression. It was invented to oppress. It is not a fallacy, saying “Whataboutism” is.
Elitism
Actual proteins you need supplements for if you go vegan
No you don’t. Literally every plant contains EVERY amino acid in varying amounts. You don’t need to supplement protein as a vegan.
Would you believe that I don’t want to eat just plants and pills for each meal? Would you also believe that I disagree with the industrialization of farming and the animal abuse that is so commonly paired with it.
There are humane ways to eat meat, and while they’re difficult to find, it’s a lot easier than eating what most people would consider disgusting everyday.
Yes you don’t want to just eat plants, hence you are eating animals for taste pleasure.
Why do you think it’s okay to kill someone for pleasure? What’s humane about that?
Man, you are gonna be real mad when you learn how conservation and wildlife management works
Ploughing fields for plants kills animals too
Animals other than humans aren’t people, that’s why it’s okay. You should be the first law enforcement official that prosecutes predatorial non-human animals
Literally every plant contains EVERY amino acid in varying amounts.
Guess we can all survive on grass then. Agriculture and societies were a mistake, let’s just become cattle and chill all day /s
Or you can just eat plants that you can actually digest but that wouldn’t make for a snarky comment huh?
You said “Literally every plant”. It’s right up there.
Sorry, I can’t stomach grass without some mayo or tomato sauce.
That is just a non sequitur.
I’m not on either side of the argument, but would guess a good argument would be that fish need to eat other fish in order to survive as it’s their only source of food. We don’t. Provenly.
What’s wrong with fish eating plastics we dump in the waters. Are they anti plastic or something???
/S
That’s right! Oil spill is full of calories! Why don’t they just slurp it up so they can contain a lot of fish oil!
We still need to eat someone
Are you sure?
Yeah, until we evolve to consume light directly, we’ll be processing some other organics.
Imo harm does not equal to kill. A fish with limited imagination cannot be harmed if his life just ends and he does not feel anything.
Can the same be said about people? How do we judge imagination of a fish? If we don’t understand what they feel is it because of their lack of imagination or ours?
To be fair, he’s technically not wrong, exactly as you pointed out - if your life just ends instantly, be it fish or human, they won’t feel or think jack shit.
Eat yourself then.
A person does not need to eat meat.
People absolutely do need to eat meat, specifically cooked meat in order to be intelligent. It’s what made cavemen smarter than other animals. Also the recent rise in average height and IQ from good nutrition is in part directly related to cheap meat from factory farming.
Got any sources?
Not exactly a scientific paper, but I guess it should be a good enough source for lemmy
The video says it was cooking, not cooked meat, and even says homo erectus mostly ate plants.
So you think our need to COOK meat is the same as needing to EAT meat?
My god. I don’t think there’s much help for you.
Uhhh… no. It’s not good enough for lemmy.
We needed to eat meat to get to this point. We can stop now.
Except in most cases we can’t. You may be able to, in which case, good job, but meat is much cheaper per quantity and quality of nutrients, not to mention people like me, whose only real source of dietary iron is meat.
Iron is just a mineral, where do you think the cows get it? Plenty of plants have iron. Meat is also typically a lot more expensive than rice and beans. Like you want to eat meat, that’s cool, just stop acting like it’s for your health when meat is literally a carcinogen.
Nails have iron, try eating one of those! The air is mostly Nitrogen, why do plants even need N2 in the soil?
It’s basic fucking science that nutrients take different forms which can be absorbed differently.
Again: where do you think the cows get it, lol. Not from nails.
Unless you’re a hunter there’s no way meat is cheaper, wtf are you talking about?
1kg of chicken breast meat costs me less than 5 USD and covers multiple days of meals. To get equivalent nutrients out of plants would cost me way more than that.
wtf you can? Where I am chicken breast is USD $11.64per kg!
Compare that to beans. Where I live I can get a kg of dried pinto beans for $3.50, and with 67% as much protein per serving as chicken it would cost $5.25 to get the same amount of protein as a kg of chicken breast.
What’s the price of 1kg of dried beans where you live? That’d be a more apt comparison.
Depends a lot on brand and quality, but I’d guess the average is somewhat close to yours, at $3.00 US. Beans are a major source of protein for most people, where I live. Doesn’t help me, though - I don’t much mind the flavor, but they make me incredibly nauseous.
You are absolutely 100% wrong on this. And so wrong that it’s hilarious. Please don’t reproduce.
Nice argument, you sure showed him! Oh, wait, you didn’t - there was no substance to your reply. I suggest actually choosing a point of contention and explaining your perspective next time.
Oh, the irony.
There’s no irony, as my point of contention is your inability to discuss things like an adult despite, presumably, being one.
According to that logic, Inuit people should be able to outsmart all of us - but they don’t seem to be smarter or dumber than the rest of the human population.
Access to meat (thus better nutrition) increasing doesn’t imply meat makes you Megamind. That’s a very poor argument in bad faith.
The minute you start blathering about a “rise in IQ” you are making a “poor argument in bad faith.”
Because? Things don’t become truthful just because you said them.
Don’t tell me… tell your meat-obsessed friend over there.
Right… let’s check his comment point by point, shall we?
A person does not need to eat meat.
I believe you’ll agree with this without the need to further explain it.
People absolutely do need to eat meat
This is strictly true, in our current context. The food production chain simply cannot cope with the abrupt loss of a main source of nutrients in most places. Particularly when 'muricans are throwing away up to half of their food.
specifically cooked meat in order to be intelligent.
Non-statement statement of dubious quality. Should be rewritten.
It’s what made cavemen smarter than other animals.
That’s invariably the most accepted explanation to homo sapiens evolution
Also the recent rise in average height and IQ from good nutrition is in part directly related to cheap meat from factory farming.
Meat provides very dense nutritional value, I’m sure you’ll agree - it’s why carnivores exist to begin with. We know, factually, that nutritional quality directly correlates with better health, both in body and mind. We also know that meat can be VERY cheap, as long as you’re not looking for “grade A elite baby wagyuu” stuff.
Where, exactly, is your point explicit?
As far as value goes, I don’t particularly value my own life or that of a fish. I do value the suffering of both while living though, as in I want to minimise that as much as possible.
… wait, so you’re saying is if someone painlessly murdered you in your sleep it’d be okay?
I’ll take two
Pretty sure you only need one. Or did you have something else in mind?
… should have seen that coming lol
Yes please
I’d be placing a thank you letter in advance.
Don’t get me wrong, in general I’m not a cynical person and have most things one would wish for. I just don’t think life is worth anything in itself and being alive is just a chance of experiencing or producing needless suffering. The (incredible) good feelings don’t make up for all the bad ones that exist.
If someone where to kill me, I’d be glad it’s over. While being alive I’d feel bad for my loved ones of course, but if I’m dead I wouldn’t be able to feel that. I know that is kind of selfish, so I would try not not to kill myself as I have too much responsibilities, but if I’m just being honest, one can dream.
Buy a man eat fish, he day, teach fish man, to a lifetime
Build a man a campfire and he’s warm for the night; set a man on fire and he’s warm for the rest of his life
Buy a man? That sounds like human trafficking dude. 🤨
sigh Came from reddit to lemmy, still see stupid af carnist memes like this. Don’t know if it’s a win or what for the fediverse
I’m sorry, but I laughed at carnist. Lighten up.
Relax, I’m a carnist/flexitarian. There’s nothing wrong with attributing a name to non-vegans/non-vegetarians. The world isn’t divided into vegans/vegetarians and so called ‘normal people’. It’s just as normal to not eat meat in some parts of the world.
Carnist also sounds pretty cool
Yeah, the preferred term is bloodmouth
Vegans giving us the most metal nickname possible expecting us to not like it
Well, there are others like cheese breathers, pus quaffers, bee vomit suckers, chicken period munchers and so on.
Apart from cheese breather none of those hit the same, you need to get better slurs. Cheese breather also isn’t metal enough for my tastes. Stick with bloodmouth.
I like to go with morally bankrupt piece of shit loser
Hey! That’s not very nice. Please apologize!
IMO pus quaffer has some grind core vibes. That said, in real life, there’s nothing “metal” in animal exploitation. If your mindset is truly like “they call me bloodmouth, it’s metal, I’m a bloodmouth”, then I guess you’d be either a 12 year old or trolling. In either case, i hope you grow out of it.
That said, in real life, there’s nothing “metal” in animal exploitation.
Bro, pull up a video of a McDonald’s meat factory and tell me that shit ain’t metal as fuck
Also why are you mad that I’m not being serious this is the meme community not the philosophy community
Other options include: corpse eater, flesh sucker, and meat mouth. :V
Bloodmouth just rolls off the tongue better than all those, please continue calling me that
Yeah it’s way better.
Pisses a lot of people off too, which is why I use it lol
Why would anyone be pissed off by that word?
You do you, soil muncher.
you lighten up on the animal exploitation maybe?
Im proud to call myself one! Cool name
Since im on a pure carnivore diet for health reasons. The phrase carnist sounds so metal. Thanks for a new term to call myself
Out of curiosity what illness do you have that makes you unable to eat plants
I have never understood this logic. If a lion eats a zebra, there’s nothing wrong with it, but when a human eats a cow, they’re a horrible person. (also I know that not all vegans think like this)
I personally believe there’s nothing inherently wrong with eating meat, and instead the problem is how we treat the animals we eat and that we eat way too much meat, taking it for granted.
I agree with your second paragraph, but the appeal to nature is not a good argument and routinely gets exposed as such in debates on the ethics of meat consumption. There are very clear differences between a lion and a human.
The very clear difference is that you discriminate against humans.
lol
We are intelligent and capable of considering the idea that an animal may not want to die, and we have it within our means to survive without meat, or with much less meat than we currently consume.
Animals who are being lead to slaughter have been observed to panic and try to flee. They do not want to die. What right do we have to take the life of an animal that wants to live as much as any other person? We are capable of considering this question. Animals are not. That’s the difference.
Even as a carnivore you would not eat a freshly born baby straight out of the mother’s womb, whereas any other predator would see it as an easy meal. There IS a moral implication in taking life.
We can only afford to question this because we are in a utopia of sorts compared to just a few hundred years ago. We are capable of understanding that there are philosophical, moral, and ethical dilemmas to eating meat in 2023. However, if the world went to shit and say an electrical storm wiped out all electronics on Earth, we would not even hesitate to eat meat in as little as a few months in.
People have been able to “afford to question this” since antiquity - it’s not some modern affectation. You see plenty of instances of people arguing for or outright mandating vegetarian or vegan diets dating back thousands of years. I am not sure if PETA’s specific reasoning (“you shouldn’t eat a fish because the fish would prefer you not do that”) is represented, but you definitely see scholars and rulers in the ancient world arguing for a variety of reasons that people should not kill or eat animals.
Necessity is obviously a factor.
Agreed. Once lab-grown/synthetic meat becomes widely available and reasonably-priced, the necessity/demand to keep large farms full of livestock for meat production will take a downturn.
Socrates was already criticising it in 450 BCE. Also all Indian religions were championing non-violence as early as mid-1st millennium BCE. This is nothing new nor revolutionary and people were already questioning their actions when “the world was shit” as you put it.
People can strive to become better in any situation.
Arguing that something’s okay because it’s a natural behaviour is the naturalistic fallacy. The difference is that other species don’t have any choice over how they live or even the mental capacity to think about the morality of their actions. Humans that are well-off and don’t have medical conditions that clash with veganism do.
I used to agree with the second paragraph, but watching videos of pigs/cows/chickens being slaughtered changed my mind. Imo their prior treatment doesn’t really negate what happens there- and even if it did, I couldn’t use ideal farm conditions as a defense when the vast majority of meat I’ve been eating is raised under less ideal conditions.
(This isn’t calling anyone who eats a burger satan, to be clear. Just trying to say my views in good faith.)
I used to agree with the second paragraph, but watching videos of pigs/cows/chickens being slaughtered changed my mind. Imo their prior treatment doesn’t really negate what happens there- and even if it did, I couldn’t use ideal farm conditions as a defense when the vast majority of meat I’ve been eating is raised under less ideal conditions.
Methods of slaughtering them are terrible and absolutely criminal.
One good thing PETA has done is raise awareness about how the meat industry treats its animals - I’ll give them that, definitely.
PETA itself is an organization I place in the same category as a cult, though. Their own practices make the sincerity of their intentions almost blatantly questionable.
Agreed. Not the biggest fan of PETA; am very much a fan of animal welfare and rights being advocated for. CO2 ‘stunning’ of pigs especially gets to me.
Moralizing about eating meat is a fallacy as well. You have no qualms with killing bugs or plants. You might even support killing humans in some cases. The thresholds you describe are nothing more than your own subjective, personal comfort level. Every single life form in the universe consumes other life forms in order to survive. The way we treat our food, now that is the real issue.
The difference between killing animals and plants, which do not have a CNS and therefore almost certainly aren’t sentient, has been discussed thoroughly elsewhere in this comments section. Do you believe mowing a lawn is equivalent to harming a dog?
Regarding insects, it should be emphasised that veganism is avoiding anything that causes animal suffering or exploitation as far as is practical. Necessary cases, like the unavoidable death of insects for plant agriculture, aren’t morally equivalent to unnecessary cases in the same way that killing other humans can sometimes be justified by circumstances, eg. self-defence. (EDIT: And any livestock raised on feed are indirectly causing more insect death regardless.)
People can indeed have different personal comfort levels when it comes to moral debates, but we can also discuss whether those comfort levels are reasonable. Otherwise ‘we have different personal comfort levels’ could be used in response to any moral question. It could be within someone’s ‘personal comfort level’ to kill and eat babies as long as they were treated well until then.
Edit: TL;DR: context matters for any moral question and I’m not a fan of total moral relativism.
There is no proof that the central nervous system is responsible for sentience. Mowing a lawn is a mass extinction event for the residents of that lawn. Does a broken grasshopper suffer less than a broken human, simply because it can’t wax poetic about its experience? Veganism promotes monoculture and environmental destruction as well, it’s just easier to pretend that it doesn’t.
My point about personal comfort is that it’s the ONLY metric by which you measure your moral code regarding consumption of other life forms to extend your own life.
While we can’t be completely sure, our current understanding of sentience makes it a reasonable assumption. Even if plants are sentient, eating from higher trophic levels causes more plant deaths than eating plants directly.
Regarding the rest, I feel like I addressed all of that in the comment above. I’m a fallible human being and personal discomfort with killing animals no less cognitively complex than our pets, and sometimes toddlers, is definitely a factor, but I’ve been arguing based on necessity and quantity instead of that.
EDIT: And to be clear, I’ve never claimed veganism is environmentally perfect. It doesn’t solve every problem with food production, it just helps with some, and it seems largely better for the environment (albeit with nuance around grazing certain types of land) even if we keep doing monocultures.
^ This is what reddit was like before it got big
If by that you mean both sides were civil, ty haha. I’m trying not to replicate the toxicity of the average reddit argument (which I got sucked into a lot) but I worry I still get too logic-as-my-blade, so I’m glad if my intentions still got through.
A great tip I’ve heard is to try to read others’ comments in the most good-faith tone possible, since it’s easy for that not to carry over text.
the issue is that we’re doing it on a massive scale semi-automatically.
keeping small amount of animals in decent-ish conditions (like on a small farm) and killing some for food/meat is fine.
keeping thouthands of animals in tiny cages where they basically can’t move at all is not.Removed by mod
Peta kills more animals in their shelters than most other organizations. It was never about protecting animals. It was always about hating humans.
It was always about hating humans
Or, to keep it simple: making money off of humans by exploiting their empathy?
“He kill them wi’ their love. That’s how it is, every day, all over the world.” ~John Coffey (Stephen King - The Green Mile)
Please stop spreading misinformation funded by the meat industry https://www.petakillsanimalsscam.com/
Tyvm for this, though to be fair this is a PETA source; do you have anything external?
Regardless, their claims about the petakillsanimals site being run by a disinformation org seem to be true. The wikipedia article on the CCF is damning; they seem to have a general goal of opposing any environmental, public health or social justice campaigns that harm certain industries.
Can someone explain this template to me?
I’m afraid that’s classified information
SJ Voice: The fuck you mean classified?!? Motherfucker?
deleted by creator
