Is that a strange vegan comeback? For the entire history of civilization, people were eating meat when given a choice. It’s vegans/vegetarians who made not eating meat a point and a thing. And while I understand why people make that choice, some of them spend way too much time advertising their way of life.
Yes, but my message is an answer to someone else who raised the topic. And again, nothing against other people’s preferences, I’m only against making a thing out of them. Eating meat is not a thing, it’s "old and boring*
You’d think, but there’s lot of people that make eating meat a thing all right.
I never got bothered for eating meat, but I got approached several times by complete strangers while getting veg food because they HAD to mock me, convince me or explain nutrition to me.
Every group has their fanatics.
Wow, you really DIDN’T listen to a word they said. Or you are intentionally choosing to misrepresent the reasons people object to your cruelty, violence, and atrocity; not your dietary choices.
Jain, Buddhist, Hindu, Manichaeists, Monasticism etc might want a word.
Maybe also bear in mind it’s perhaps the industrial revolution and massive scale animal abuse that’s led to the average pleb expecting daily meat instead of daily bread.
It’s more than a way of life to them, it’s an urgent necessity, like dropping fossil fuels. They talk to you about it because they want to sensitize you.
Marrying, among other things, children is a large, normalized part of human history, but that doesn’t make it right. Eating meat when you can choose not to is morally wrong. Period.
This is so strange to me, because everyone I’ve talked to agrees in theory but has this disconnect when it comes to reality.
Thought experiment: if I’ll give you a cookie, but only if you kick a dog, would you do it?
I’d bet nearly everybody would say fuck no, and probably be at least a little pissed even to be asked. Somehow “making an animal suffer to have a food you enjoy” is wrong to everybody at this personal level, but add enough steps in between the cause and effect and suddenly people are happy to have animals abused and then slaughtered for them to enjoy their meals. Just looking at the response to your comment (6 upvotes and 5 down atm) shows this in action - to anyone disagreeing with @the_q’s point, do you also think kicking a dog for a cookie is okay in my hypothetical? If not, where do you draw the line?
People are willing and able to ignore the sufficiently-abstracted moral hit for deliciousness. Upthread, I commented on someone else with an effortpost, about how they knew about the immorality, and that choosing to turn a blind eye to it and instead be outwardly nasty is bad for the soul.
A lot of people would be willing to take that cookie if you tell them that, in the process of making it and as a requirement, they kicked a dog. That already happened, after all. What would not eating the cookie mean now?
Time really fucks with people on a minute to minute basis. Doing moral calculus while removing the time element is wholly outside of their experiences, mostly.
You can substitute the cookie for whatever food makes the hypothetical more relatable to you - is there any food that would make you say yes to the deal?
The vast majority of the animal kingdom kills other animals for food. But somehow at some point we decided it wasn’t cool for humans to do anymore? What about controlled hunting, where animals will die regardless of whether or not you kill them?
Where do you draw the line? Of course oysters and the likes are fine since they’re incapable of suffering, physical or otherwise. But then what if they’re capable of suffering, but incapable of many other thoughts besides instinct? Depending on how you kill them, they might suffer less than a natural death.
Black-and-white statement like yours “it’s wrong, period” are why vegans have bad reputation. Instead, consider focusing on actual issues, such as poor treatment of animals throughout their lives, or the health advantages of not eating meat.
What’s an animal to you? Would you eat a human? How about a dog? Where do you draw the line? Humans used to also shit in the woods. Do you have a toilet?
It is morally wrong. There is no gray area. Their treatment can be extraordinary, but ending an animals life when they’ve either reached a certain age for their meat or because they can’t produce something anymore is still killing a being that can feel pain, fear and love. It hurts my brain that people like you can’t get that, but judging how the modern world works I’m not the least bit surprised.
Let’s take a more extreme situation then. I have chickens. They are free to roam around the yard and do whatever they want. Eventually, when they reach the end of their lives, I kill and eat them. Suffering wise, it’s the exact same as if I hadn’t killed them, they just lose a few of their last days. Honestly it might just save them suffering, considering how most of those last days are spent in pain. Do you still think this is somehow still immoral, despite no additional suffering having been added?
If so, then I guess you’re also one of those people who think humans should live as old as they can, despite their suffering?
Why is eating the poor bird still your argument? Euthenasia is merciful, but you don’t get to decide when and you don’t do the killing yourself. And why even bring up their suffering when most chickens live arguably the most suffer-filled existence of all factory farmed animals? You don’t care about their suffering even in this hypothetical scenario.
What’s your argument agaisnt it though? This is a hypothetical scenario, what I care about or not doesn’t matter. Is it that somehow it’s the act of choosing when they die that’s immoral?
Forget about their suffering existense, in this scenario they have a better life than in nature since they don’t have to worry about predation while still being able to roam about.
They… don’t have brains, that’s proven. Sure, they can process information, but so can mushrooms and even some plants, such as trees. Will you stop eating those too?
It makes no sense that a living creature would not have a system in place to detect and avoid harm. Whether we see it as suffering from our point of view or not is irrelevant.
Will you stop eating those too?
I can and have. The primary thing that should inform one on what to eat is and should always be nutrition.
I can and have
You… don’t eat plants and mushrooms anymore? What kind of diet is left then?
It’s the same with plants, they too react to stimuli, that’s how they avoid harm. Like how some plants become “soft” in the face of harsh weather to avoid breaking. Or others physically move. If you cut a plant but not fully, you can see the plant try to repair it. How is this any different from a brain-less animal reacting to its stimuli?
I don’t see avoiding suffering as a tenable or even meaningful way of deciding what to eat, and so I choose based on the effects of what I put inside my body. I eat only animal sourced foods.
How is this any different from a brain-less animal reacting to its stimuli?
I don’t think it is any different at all. A narrow definition of “suffering” is reductionist and inadequate.
I mean I agree, I’m all for a plant-based diet for health reasons. But most vegans out there, including the one I was responding to, only use suffering as their argument. Here the part I disagreed with was the “always morally wrong” blanket statement.
There are so many things you can’t prove and yet still act upon, this is a stupid conversation. For literally every other animal out there, it’s proven that pain is only felt once it reaches the brain. Why would you somehow assume muscles now have a mini brain to process it locally.
But it does help. I do eat meat occasionally but I am aware that lowering the demand of meat will lower the forced reproduction and torture into murder of cattle. It’s the free market y’all love to preach, voting with your wallet.
I assumed that most meat lovers were American and generalised, sorry.
If 30% of the population stops eating meat, keeping the same production would be unprofitable. You do understand that each vote counts, right? As the eating habits of society shifts, so does the production industry.
I know that my vote individually. Means nothing, but statistically there are several people that think similar to me, and of I decide to reduce consumption they will too, which in turn influences production. It would be more effective to be an activist but I don’t care enough.
One person, not eating one meat meal, doesn’t really shift the needle.
One person, spending entire rest of their life, not eating any of the meat meals they otherwise would have, does in fact add up to several animals worth of meat.
Ten people, spending the entire rest of their lives, not eating any of the meat meals they otherwise would have, is a massive number of meat animals, for which the demand will not exist, and which will not therefore be raised.
There are a lot more than ten vegans.
While I’m not, I respect those that can.
Your bitterness that prevents you from ever having to consider if you have made a moral error is not serving you in your day to day morality, and it will eat into other areas of your personhood. I suggest to you that the emotional hit for acknowledging that yes, choosing not to eat meat is fine actually, and it does do some good, or, in the equally true but differently perspectived stance, you choosing to eat meat is hurting animals. Price the morality into your meat. You’re still paying it if you ignore it, but the cost is in being a tolerable person who people want to be around.
Ten people, spending the entire rest of their lives, not eating any of the meat meals they otherwise would have, is a massive number of meat animals, for which the demand will not exist, and which will not therefore be raised.
so which farms shut down due to the existence of vegans?
Starving animals by eating their food doesn’t really sound moral to me. More merciful to kill them directly instead of a slow painful death by starvation.
Is there a workbook you people all follow with a checklist of wrong information that you spew with no concern about validity? More so, why don’t you just tell the truth? You don’t care about animals period. At least it’s honest.
You cannot even say, “things carnist actually think,” because this is not actually thought. It’s bad faith intended to distract you from thinking, so you will not have to process thoughts and feelings that you are not willing to.
For the entire history of civilization, people were eating meat when given a choice.
This is the sort of thing you think is true because you saw it in cartoons growing up, but if you actually consider it honestly, I think you’ll find your source is, “I bet!”
Is that a strange vegan comeback? For the entire history of civilization, people were eating meat when given a choice. It’s vegans/vegetarians who made not eating meat a point and a thing. And while I understand why people make that choice, some of them spend way too much time advertising their way of life.
Seemed like a joke, to me anyway
Found the meat eater.
Yes, but my message is an answer to someone else who raised the topic. And again, nothing against other people’s preferences, I’m only against making a thing out of them. Eating meat is not a thing, it’s "old and boring*
You’d think, but there’s lot of people that make eating meat a thing all right.
I never got bothered for eating meat, but I got approached several times by complete strangers while getting veg food because they HAD to mock me, convince me or explain nutrition to me.
Every group has their fanatics.
It’s weird that nobody ever comes up to my hamburger and I and starts ranting at us about not eating meat. Clearly it’s only vegans who have an issue.
/s because we are all past the days of thinking it could be skipped.
Wow, you really DIDN’T listen to a word they said. Or you are intentionally choosing to misrepresent the reasons people object to your cruelty, violence, and atrocity; not your dietary choices.
Read again
deleted by creator
Are you sure on that?
Jain, Buddhist, Hindu, Manichaeists, Monasticism etc might want a word.
Maybe also bear in mind it’s perhaps the industrial revolution and massive scale animal abuse that’s led to the average pleb expecting daily meat instead of daily bread.
It’s more than a way of life to them, it’s an urgent necessity, like dropping fossil fuels. They talk to you about it because they want to sensitize you.
Marrying, among other things, children is a large, normalized part of human history, but that doesn’t make it right. Eating meat when you can choose not to is morally wrong. Period.
This is so strange to me, because everyone I’ve talked to agrees in theory but has this disconnect when it comes to reality.
Thought experiment: if I’ll give you a cookie, but only if you kick a dog, would you do it?
I’d bet nearly everybody would say fuck no, and probably be at least a little pissed even to be asked. Somehow “making an animal suffer to have a food you enjoy” is wrong to everybody at this personal level, but add enough steps in between the cause and effect and suddenly people are happy to have animals abused and then slaughtered for them to enjoy their meals. Just looking at the response to your comment (6 upvotes and 5 down atm) shows this in action - to anyone disagreeing with @the_q’s point, do you also think kicking a dog for a cookie is okay in my hypothetical? If not, where do you draw the line?
no one is happy about that
Yeah that’s fair, I probably phrased that uncharitably. People are definitely happy about the byproducts of that abuse tho
Maybe complacent is the word I would use. I agree with you.
People are willing and able to ignore the sufficiently-abstracted moral hit for deliciousness. Upthread, I commented on someone else with an effortpost, about how they knew about the immorality, and that choosing to turn a blind eye to it and instead be outwardly nasty is bad for the soul.
A lot of people would be willing to take that cookie if you tell them that, in the process of making it and as a requirement, they kicked a dog. That already happened, after all. What would not eating the cookie mean now?
Time really fucks with people on a minute to minute basis. Doing moral calculus while removing the time element is wholly outside of their experiences, mostly.
Why would I want a cookie?
Why wouldn’t you want a cookie? Lol
You can substitute the cookie for whatever food makes the hypothetical more relatable to you - is there any food that would make you say yes to the deal?
The vast majority of the animal kingdom kills other animals for food. But somehow at some point we decided it wasn’t cool for humans to do anymore? What about controlled hunting, where animals will die regardless of whether or not you kill them?
Where do you draw the line? Of course oysters and the likes are fine since they’re incapable of suffering, physical or otherwise. But then what if they’re capable of suffering, but incapable of many other thoughts besides instinct? Depending on how you kill them, they might suffer less than a natural death.
Black-and-white statement like yours “it’s wrong, period” are why vegans have bad reputation. Instead, consider focusing on actual issues, such as poor treatment of animals throughout their lives, or the health advantages of not eating meat.
What’s an animal to you? Would you eat a human? How about a dog? Where do you draw the line? Humans used to also shit in the woods. Do you have a toilet?
It is morally wrong. There is no gray area. Their treatment can be extraordinary, but ending an animals life when they’ve either reached a certain age for their meat or because they can’t produce something anymore is still killing a being that can feel pain, fear and love. It hurts my brain that people like you can’t get that, but judging how the modern world works I’m not the least bit surprised.
Let’s take a more extreme situation then. I have chickens. They are free to roam around the yard and do whatever they want. Eventually, when they reach the end of their lives, I kill and eat them. Suffering wise, it’s the exact same as if I hadn’t killed them, they just lose a few of their last days. Honestly it might just save them suffering, considering how most of those last days are spent in pain. Do you still think this is somehow still immoral, despite no additional suffering having been added?
If so, then I guess you’re also one of those people who think humans should live as old as they can, despite their suffering?
Why is eating the poor bird still your argument? Euthenasia is merciful, but you don’t get to decide when and you don’t do the killing yourself. And why even bring up their suffering when most chickens live arguably the most suffer-filled existence of all factory farmed animals? You don’t care about their suffering even in this hypothetical scenario.
What’s your argument agaisnt it though? This is a hypothetical scenario, what I care about or not doesn’t matter. Is it that somehow it’s the act of choosing when they die that’s immoral?
Forget about their suffering existense, in this scenario they have a better life than in nature since they don’t have to worry about predation while still being able to roam about.
this can’t be proven
They… don’t have brains, that’s proven. Sure, they can process information, but so can mushrooms and even some plants, such as trees. Will you stop eating those too?
It makes no sense that a living creature would not have a system in place to detect and avoid harm. Whether we see it as suffering from our point of view or not is irrelevant.
I can and have. The primary thing that should inform one on what to eat is and should always be nutrition.
It’s the same with plants, they too react to stimuli, that’s how they avoid harm. Like how some plants become “soft” in the face of harsh weather to avoid breaking. Or others physically move. If you cut a plant but not fully, you can see the plant try to repair it. How is this any different from a brain-less animal reacting to its stimuli?
I don’t see avoiding suffering as a tenable or even meaningful way of deciding what to eat, and so I choose based on the effects of what I put inside my body. I eat only animal sourced foods.
I don’t think it is any different at all. A narrow definition of “suffering” is reductionist and inadequate.
I mean I agree, I’m all for a plant-based diet for health reasons. But most vegans out there, including the one I was responding to, only use suffering as their argument. Here the part I disagreed with was the “always morally wrong” blanket statement.
I eat all kinds of animals. I’m just saying you can’t prove muscles can’t suffer
I don’t get it. Pain is processed in the brain, and they don’t have one. Are you implying the muscle itself somehow feels pain? But what processes it?
I’m not saying they can suffer. I’m saying you can’t prove they are incapable.
There are so many things you can’t prove and yet still act upon, this is a stupid conversation. For literally every other animal out there, it’s proven that pain is only felt once it reaches the brain. Why would you somehow assume muscles now have a mini brain to process it locally.
there is nothing wrong with eating meat, and choosing to abstain doesn’t help any animals.
But it does help. I do eat meat occasionally but I am aware that lowering the demand of meat will lower the forced reproduction and torture into murder of cattle. It’s the free market y’all love to preach, voting with your wallet.
when have you ever seen me talk about"free markets"?
tell me, which farm bred fewer animals because of your shopping habits?
I assumed that most meat lovers were American and generalised, sorry.
If 30% of the population stops eating meat, keeping the same production would be unprofitable. You do understand that each vote counts, right? As the eating habits of society shifts, so does the production industry.
I know that my vote individually. Means nothing, but statistically there are several people that think similar to me, and of I decide to reduce consumption they will too, which in turn influences production. It would be more effective to be an activist but I don’t care enough.
do you have a plan to make that happen?
One person, not eating one meat meal, doesn’t really shift the needle.
One person, spending entire rest of their life, not eating any of the meat meals they otherwise would have, does in fact add up to several animals worth of meat.
Ten people, spending the entire rest of their lives, not eating any of the meat meals they otherwise would have, is a massive number of meat animals, for which the demand will not exist, and which will not therefore be raised.
There are a lot more than ten vegans.
While I’m not, I respect those that can.
Your bitterness that prevents you from ever having to consider if you have made a moral error is not serving you in your day to day morality, and it will eat into other areas of your personhood. I suggest to you that the emotional hit for acknowledging that yes, choosing not to eat meat is fine actually, and it does do some good, or, in the equally true but differently perspectived stance, you choosing to eat meat is hurting animals. Price the morality into your meat. You’re still paying it if you ignore it, but the cost is in being a tolerable person who people want to be around.
yes, probably.
I doubt it
no, it’s not.
so which farms shut down due to the existence of vegans?
Morals aren’t really your thing, eh?
I’m kind of an expert, actually
This is one of those situations like where professors of ethics have the poorest ethics of any academic.
talk about bad faith
Clearly not.
saying something doesn’t make it true
Lol
Starving animals by eating their food doesn’t really sound moral to me. More merciful to kill them directly instead of a slow painful death by starvation.
Found a new strangest response to veganism!
I mean if we are going to be acting like cunts in the comments section, we might as well do it right ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Is there a workbook you people all follow with a checklist of wrong information that you spew with no concern about validity? More so, why don’t you just tell the truth? You don’t care about animals period. At least it’s honest.
I can literally copy and paste this comment directly back at you and it would still be true.
Things carnists brainwash themselves with ^^^
You cannot even say, “things carnist actually think,” because this is not actually thought. It’s bad faith intended to distract you from thinking, so you will not have to process thoughts and feelings that you are not willing to.
I’m a communist, not a carnist
One has nothing to do with the other.
exactly
So there is nothing preventing you from being both. So WTF.
you are making that up. you don’t know anything about me
othering people with neologisms is pretty bad faith.
Hey, found the pissy meat eater.
This is the sort of thing you think is true because you saw it in cartoons growing up, but if you actually consider it honestly, I think you’ll find your source is, “I bet!”
People have been eating fish for since before we were homosapiens.
It was a daily food in ancient Egypt.
Your attempt to declare there is no source on this is just pure laziness on your part.
Found the meat eater