Vegans don't eat animals for the sake of the animals, because they believe killing them unnecessarily is morally wrong.
Saying you're only going to eat animals once a day is like saying you're going to halve the amount of violent crimes you commit and expecting praise for it.
It depends on wether you're actually concerned about the animals, or about yourself.
If you're concerned about the animals, 100 people reducing by 10% is exactly as good as 10 people reducing by 100%. The difference is, 10 people don't have to feel guilty. But no animal benefits from that.
Sure, and if you could somehow demonstrate that advocating for 100% means those 100 people are definitely, totally not going to change their consumption at all, you'd have an actual point.
Those 100 people would still be eating 90% as many animals as they were before. People don't need to eat animals to live, so expecting praise for eating 10% less is pretty funny.
It'd be like a criminal deciding to decrease the amount of crimes he commits by 10% and expecting people to encourage and praise him.
Everything on the planet eats everything else on the planet.
I'm all for sustainable and ethical meat, but killing a cow for beef is not fucking murder, and doing so has the opposite effect you're intending - it just dilutes definition of murder.
Animals are gonna die. We have so many fucking cows, chickens and pigs on this planet only because we're gonna eat them. Most wouldn't be alive anyway if they weren't grown for food.
Maybe try adjusting your expectations to be in line with fucking reality -- my 4 year old still wishes for a unicorn when she blows out my candles but my 7 year old now wishes for things that might or could actually happen. In other words! Grow up.
Everything on the planet eats everything else on the planet.
I believe that's called the appeal to nature fallacy. Something happening in nature doesn't mean it's morally right. Lions often commit infanticide, but that obviously doesn't make it okay for humans to do.
Most wouldn’t be alive anyway if they weren’t grown for food.
That would be much better than breeding billions of animals and putting them under the conditions we do, just because people like how they taste.
Your 7 year old probably also wishes for world peace, better stop working for a better world!
Everything on this world dies, therefore it's morally totally fine to artificially create, imprison, and then kill billions for no other reason than taste. Every dog dies, therefore shooting them for fun is morally totally fine!
Appeal to nature, seriously, for your 7 year olds sake, look it up.
See, I don't care about the praise or the feeling of purity or whatever. I care about the actual effect in what is arguably the actual concern, in this case greenhouse gas emissions. And for that, it does not matter if many reduce or few abstain.
Vegans don't eat animals for the sake of the animals, because they believe killing them unnecessarily is morally wrong.
Saying you're only going to eat animals once a day is like saying you're going to halve the amount of violent crimes you commit and expecting praise for it.
It depends on wether you're actually concerned about the animals, or about yourself.
If you're concerned about the animals, 100 people reducing by 10% is exactly as good as 10 people reducing by 100%. The difference is, 10 people don't have to feel guilty. But no animal benefits from that.
Sure, and if you could somehow demonstrate that advocating for 100% means those 100 people are definitely, totally not going to change their consumption at all, you'd have an actual point.
Those 100 people would still be eating 90% as many animals as they were before. People don't need to eat animals to live, so expecting praise for eating 10% less is pretty funny.
It'd be like a criminal deciding to decrease the amount of crimes he commits by 10% and expecting people to encourage and praise him.
Everything on the planet eats everything else on the planet.
I'm all for sustainable and ethical meat, but killing a cow for beef is not fucking murder, and doing so has the opposite effect you're intending - it just dilutes definition of murder.
Animals are gonna die. We have so many fucking cows, chickens and pigs on this planet only because we're gonna eat them. Most wouldn't be alive anyway if they weren't grown for food.
Maybe try adjusting your expectations to be in line with fucking reality -- my 4 year old still wishes for a unicorn when she blows out my candles but my 7 year old now wishes for things that might or could actually happen. In other words! Grow up.
I believe that's called the appeal to nature fallacy. Something happening in nature doesn't mean it's morally right. Lions often commit infanticide, but that obviously doesn't make it okay for humans to do.
That would be much better than breeding billions of animals and putting them under the conditions we do, just because people like how they taste.
Your 7 year old probably also wishes for world peace, better stop working for a better world!
Everything on this world dies, therefore it's morally totally fine to artificially create, imprison, and then kill billions for no other reason than taste. Every dog dies, therefore shooting them for fun is morally totally fine!
Appeal to nature, seriously, for your 7 year olds sake, look it up.
See, I don't care about the praise or the feeling of purity or whatever. I care about the actual effect in what is arguably the actual concern, in this case greenhouse gas emissions. And for that, it does not matter if many reduce or few abstain.