You know, I really wish you were clearer in your OP so I wasn't dragged in to a vegans discussion
Oh no you had to think about what happens to the animals you eat for a few seconds!
Eating animals isn't the problem, necessarily. It's how the animals are grown and raised like crops is the problem. I have a weird stance on this that looks very contradicting. Humans are animals, and we are engineered to include meat in our diets. However, I don't agree with how the majority of us access that meat.
I'm a strong believer in hunting for food, not sport. If you're going to eat an animal, you should work for it. And be thankful. Doesn't matter what beliefs you hold, you owe thanks to what the animal has provided you.
Meat farms are disgusting. But there's no way they will ever go away. They're much too profitable for companies to give up.
How do you humanely kill an animal who doesn't need or want to die?
How does thanking someone after you needlessly kill them help anything?
Why not just eat plants when we can easily thrive on a plant based diet?
We aren't "engineered" at all, we're omnivores which means we can do just fine both with and without meat.
You hunt it. Not as a sport. Give the animal a fair chance, and even then it's not a fair fight, so be thankful for what's been provided
Killing when we don't have to is cruel, doing it in the forest doesn't make it better, we can just eat plants.
There's nothing fair about needless killing, nothing is provided to you, you're taking it be force.
We are animals engineered to eat meat. It is natural for humans to do so. Killing an animal has nothing to do with morality. How it's done does
Humans aren't engineered at all.
We are animals who happened to mutate to be able to thrive with and without meat, we're omnivores.
If we are animals and killing animals has nothing to do with morality I can kill you with no consequences and without feeling bad yeah?
Like I said, why you do it and how it's done matters. What's your reason for killing me? For this discussion of course.
Let's say I thought your corpse would taste good and provide me with sustenance for a while and I killed you painfree and instantly.
Then that's not a good reason. "Because it's good" doesn't justify the kill. For survival? Sure, I'd give that a pass, even though I'd defend myself. I would understand the situation. And people have done this.
If you have this "no-kill" stance for animals, you need to have it for everything, including insects. I'm not saying you don't, because I don't really know, but I do know that's often overlooked or ignored.
A life is a life.
It's literally the same argument you're using.
You don't need to eat animals for survival.
I don't kill insects on purpose.
Yes a life is a life and shouldn't be wasted because you think corpses taste good.
Plants too are living beings. Cutting them, letting them starve without their roots, dissecting it in various parts to be sold...
Why don't we think about it? Are we so extremely sure plants don't feel any type of pain, not even a much different pain that animals can't understand?
You are trolling at this point. You simply can't compare killing for food to murder.
We are predators by nature, and there is no way you can deny it. The human intelligence has helped us evolve better tools for both hunting and farming.
We have mutated to be better hunters and predators, apart from being also better at not being one. But the first part will always remain.
It's a too bad that you weren't more clear than your first post, people almost took you serious
The "people going “yum” in the comments" made it so extremely obvious its about OP not wanting to see pieces of cooked meat in beef ramen videos
Why wouldn't it be serious?
Meat is cut up animal corpses.
Humans can easily thrive without meat so it's clearly abusive to kill for profit/taste.
Could you reactionary fucks think about the subject for more than 2 seconds before you get angry and downvote?
Come on, guy, are you farming for an argument? You aren't helping your case by being abrasive
With respect, this approach does nothing to convince people to reduce their meat consumption, and in fact alienates people who might otherwise be on the fence about reducing their meat intake.
We get told this literally no matter how we approach the subject lol.
Which approach is it you think I'm using here and why is it ineffective?
It's not like I've been especially rude or anything?
Which approach worked on you?
You've been hostile ("reactionary fucks") and you've hijacked the broader discussion referenced in the article (Musk's Twitter showing terrible videos including human death, animal cruelty, etc) to make a point about meat consumption generally versus videos on Twitter showing the intentional and purposeful infliction of pain on animals for pleasure.
My meat consumption is down quite a bit. Information on substitutes, good recipes, studies on the intelligence of (for example) squid and such have shifted me into eating less meat. While I'm sure you'd prefer people not eat meat at all, convincing 5 people to cut their meat consumption 50% is better than convincing 0 people to cut their meat consumption 100% , no?
("reactionary fucks")
After my comments were downvoted to hell lol.
I've not hijacked anything, I contributed to the conversation and everyone lost their minds because they don't wanna think about the animal abuse they support every day.
Would I prefer that 5 people free half of their slaves versus no one freeing any slaves? Of course, why would I want everyone to stay enslaved if I could free some and continue to work to free others? Would you prefer that everyone who is currently a slave remain enslaved until we convince the entire world to free their slaves?
I think they more prefer to focus on the issue (the state of Twitter) in a post about Twitter, versus going off on tangents that would otherwise make for interesting conversation.
Would you prefer people advocate for freeing all slaves or "slave free monday"?
I think it's really a difference about whether you approach meat consumption as a moral issue or an environmental and social one.
I tend to agree with @Melpomene that any improvement is a good thing, maybe a better analogy would be in CO2 emissions. If we can convince 10% of people to bike to work one day a week then that'll make meaningful difference, and it's exactly the same from an emissions standpoint as taking X cars off the road.
Convincing someone, at least in the USA, to do without a car is fundamentally difficult, but convincing them to use it less is a significantly more accessible proposition.
I just don't see reduction as enough or what should be advocated when it comes to something so serious as billions of animals getting needlessly killed.
Billions of animals are killed wherever crops are grown.
Even if you are entirely vegan, animals have to die if you want to eat.
In fact, if your food is grown on a farm then you are probably contributing to more animal deaths than someone who obtains food from hunting or fishing.
Source on billions of crop deaths?
Besides, most plants grown are used for animal feed.
Killing animals when we don't have to is inherently cruel, farming can be done without harming animals.
That you literally made this argument is sad and gross. You just argued that people shouldn't fight to free all slaves. What the actual fuck? You literally made an argument to not fight against slavery because it's hard
The "reactionary fucks" was in response to hostility. Hijacking broader topic? I'm sure you're on reddit complaining about John Oliver taking over the broader topic that is generally on r/pics. I'll let you ruminate on that until you see the obvious point.
I'm sure in history some abolitionists wanted to get rid of slavery all together, but just minimizing the number of slaves is better than nothing right so they shouldn't have been so absolutist. At least according to your own argument unless you admit to being hypocritical or simply not understanding the argument of those you're responding to. You can't be neither though.
You're putting forth either bad faith arguments or extremely toxic ones, under the guise of polite society. It's kind of sickening if you aren't actually intentionally doing it.
This is kind of funny, cause it's the same approach the toxic right takes against progressives. "Be nice to us cause pointing out the things you do makes us get angry instead and won't convince us." It'd be ridiculously hilarious if it weren't so sad at the same time. This is the most subtly toxic response you could have had.
You've never seen any posts containing meat?
You know, I really wish you were clearer in your OP so I wasn't dragged in to a vegans discussion
Oh no you had to think about what happens to the animals you eat for a few seconds!
Eating animals isn't the problem, necessarily. It's how the animals are grown and raised like crops is the problem. I have a weird stance on this that looks very contradicting. Humans are animals, and we are engineered to include meat in our diets. However, I don't agree with how the majority of us access that meat.
I'm a strong believer in hunting for food, not sport. If you're going to eat an animal, you should work for it. And be thankful. Doesn't matter what beliefs you hold, you owe thanks to what the animal has provided you.
Meat farms are disgusting. But there's no way they will ever go away. They're much too profitable for companies to give up.
How do you humanely kill an animal who doesn't need or want to die?
How does thanking someone after you needlessly kill them help anything?
Why not just eat plants when we can easily thrive on a plant based diet?
We aren't "engineered" at all, we're omnivores which means we can do just fine both with and without meat.
You hunt it. Not as a sport. Give the animal a fair chance, and even then it's not a fair fight, so be thankful for what's been provided
Killing when we don't have to is cruel, doing it in the forest doesn't make it better, we can just eat plants.
There's nothing fair about needless killing, nothing is provided to you, you're taking it be force.
We are animals engineered to eat meat. It is natural for humans to do so. Killing an animal has nothing to do with morality. How it's done does
Humans aren't engineered at all.
We are animals who happened to mutate to be able to thrive with and without meat, we're omnivores.
If we are animals and killing animals has nothing to do with morality I can kill you with no consequences and without feeling bad yeah?
Like I said, why you do it and how it's done matters. What's your reason for killing me? For this discussion of course.
Let's say I thought your corpse would taste good and provide me with sustenance for a while and I killed you painfree and instantly.
Then that's not a good reason. "Because it's good" doesn't justify the kill. For survival? Sure, I'd give that a pass, even though I'd defend myself. I would understand the situation. And people have done this.
If you have this "no-kill" stance for animals, you need to have it for everything, including insects. I'm not saying you don't, because I don't really know, but I do know that's often overlooked or ignored.
A life is a life.
It's literally the same argument you're using.
You don't need to eat animals for survival.
I don't kill insects on purpose.
Yes a life is a life and shouldn't be wasted because you think corpses taste good.
Plants too are living beings. Cutting them, letting them starve without their roots, dissecting it in various parts to be sold...
Why don't we think about it? Are we so extremely sure plants don't feel any type of pain, not even a much different pain that animals can't understand?
Hell yes, we moved on to canabalism.
You are trolling at this point. You simply can't compare killing for food to murder.
We are predators by nature, and there is no way you can deny it. The human intelligence has helped us evolve better tools for both hunting and farming.
We have mutated to be better hunters and predators, apart from being also better at not being one. But the first part will always remain.
I didn't say I eat animals, chief.
Oh no you had to think about what happens to the animals
youother people eat for a few seconds!It's a too bad that you weren't more clear than your first post, people almost took you serious
The "people going “yum” in the comments" made it so extremely obvious its about OP not wanting to see pieces of cooked meat in beef ramen videos
Why wouldn't it be serious?
Meat is cut up animal corpses.
Humans can easily thrive without meat so it's clearly abusive to kill for profit/taste.
Could you reactionary fucks think about the subject for more than 2 seconds before you get angry and downvote?
Come on, guy, are you farming for an argument? You aren't helping your case by being abrasive
With respect, this approach does nothing to convince people to reduce their meat consumption, and in fact alienates people who might otherwise be on the fence about reducing their meat intake.
We get told this literally no matter how we approach the subject lol.
Which approach is it you think I'm using here and why is it ineffective?
It's not like I've been especially rude or anything?
Which approach worked on you?
You've been hostile ("reactionary fucks") and you've hijacked the broader discussion referenced in the article (Musk's Twitter showing terrible videos including human death, animal cruelty, etc) to make a point about meat consumption generally versus videos on Twitter showing the intentional and purposeful infliction of pain on animals for pleasure.
My meat consumption is down quite a bit. Information on substitutes, good recipes, studies on the intelligence of (for example) squid and such have shifted me into eating less meat. While I'm sure you'd prefer people not eat meat at all, convincing 5 people to cut their meat consumption 50% is better than convincing 0 people to cut their meat consumption 100% , no?
After my comments were downvoted to hell lol.
I've not hijacked anything, I contributed to the conversation and everyone lost their minds because they don't wanna think about the animal abuse they support every day.
Would I prefer that 5 people free half of their slaves versus no one freeing any slaves? Of course, why would I want everyone to stay enslaved if I could free some and continue to work to free others? Would you prefer that everyone who is currently a slave remain enslaved until we convince the entire world to free their slaves?
I think they more prefer to focus on the issue (the state of Twitter) in a post about Twitter, versus going off on tangents that would otherwise make for interesting conversation.
Would you prefer people advocate for freeing all slaves or "slave free monday"?
I think it's really a difference about whether you approach meat consumption as a moral issue or an environmental and social one.
I tend to agree with @Melpomene that any improvement is a good thing, maybe a better analogy would be in CO2 emissions. If we can convince 10% of people to bike to work one day a week then that'll make meaningful difference, and it's exactly the same from an emissions standpoint as taking X cars off the road.
Convincing someone, at least in the USA, to do without a car is fundamentally difficult, but convincing them to use it less is a significantly more accessible proposition.
I just don't see reduction as enough or what should be advocated when it comes to something so serious as billions of animals getting needlessly killed.
Billions of animals are killed wherever crops are grown.
Even if you are entirely vegan, animals have to die if you want to eat.
In fact, if your food is grown on a farm then you are probably contributing to more animal deaths than someone who obtains food from hunting or fishing.
Source on billions of crop deaths?
Besides, most plants grown are used for animal feed.
Killing animals when we don't have to is inherently cruel, farming can be done without harming animals.
That you literally made this argument is sad and gross. You just argued that people shouldn't fight to free all slaves. What the actual fuck? You literally made an argument to not fight against slavery because it's hard
?????
Slavery never ended suddenly, exactly like any other major change in society. Also its extremely off topic.
The "reactionary fucks" was in response to hostility. Hijacking broader topic? I'm sure you're on reddit complaining about John Oliver taking over the broader topic that is generally on r/pics. I'll let you ruminate on that until you see the obvious point.
I'm sure in history some abolitionists wanted to get rid of slavery all together, but just minimizing the number of slaves is better than nothing right so they shouldn't have been so absolutist. At least according to your own argument unless you admit to being hypocritical or simply not understanding the argument of those you're responding to. You can't be neither though.
You're putting forth either bad faith arguments or extremely toxic ones, under the guise of polite society. It's kind of sickening if you aren't actually intentionally doing it.
This is kind of funny, cause it's the same approach the toxic right takes against progressives. "Be nice to us cause pointing out the things you do makes us get angry instead and won't convince us." It'd be ridiculously hilarious if it weren't so sad at the same time. This is the most subtly toxic response you could have had.
No, they're incapable and whingy.
Well if you put it that way, then I guess animal cruelty isn't as bad as we thought.