• MiddleWeigh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

    • SQL_InjectMe@partizle.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      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

    • Takatakatakatakatak@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.

  • ziltoid101@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

    • sorata@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.

      • Clompsh@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        2 years ago

        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.

      • whenigrowup356@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        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.

    • corvus@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      2 years ago

      By eating vegetables you are doing harm anyway, they are living organisms after all.

      • ziltoid101@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 years ago

        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).

        • Gabu@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          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.

      • whenigrowup356@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        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.

        • corvus@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          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.

          • whenigrowup356@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            “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?”

  • Marxism-Fennekinism@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    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?

    • s_s@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      You consider humans superior in intellect and ability compared to all other animals

      Does he?

      • Marxism-Fennekinism@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 years ago

        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?

  • Rhoeri@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

    • nxfsi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.

      • Rhoeri@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        You are absolutely 100% wrong on this. And so wrong that it’s hilarious. Please don’t reproduce.

        • Gabu@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          2 years ago

          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.

            • Gabu@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 years ago

              There’s no irony, as my point of contention is your inability to discuss things like an adult despite, presumably, being one.

        • Gabu@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          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.

            • Gabu@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              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.

              • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                2 years ago

                wtf you can? Where I am chicken breast is USD $11.64 per 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.

                • Gabu@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  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.

      • masquenox@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 years ago

        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.

        • Gabu@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          2 years ago

          Access to meat (thus better nutrition) increasing doesn’t imply meat makes you Megamind. That’s a very poor argument in bad faith.

          • masquenox@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            The minute you start blathering about a “rise in IQ” you are making a “poor argument in bad faith.”

            • Gabu@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              Because? Things don’t become truthful just because you said them.

                • Gabu@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 years ago

                  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?

  • debil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    2 years ago

    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

      • Rachelhazideas@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 years ago

        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.

          • debil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            Well, there are others like cheese breathers, pus quaffers, bee vomit suckers, chicken period munchers and so on.

            • Ghostc1212@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              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.

              • debil@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                2 years ago

                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.

                • Ghostc1212@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 years ago

                  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

    • SpiritSilver@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      Since im on a pure carnivore diet for health reasons. The phrase carnist sounds so metal. Thanks for a new term to call myself

  • van@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    Sure, animals eats animals, so I can eat cat too. It’s natural.

  • where_am_i@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    You can, greg. But with that type of reasoning, you’re also just a fish. And this is not a compliment, greg