this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2023
1364 points (90.8% liked)
Memes
45745 readers
1752 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Hey, we're exactly the same in this respect! The only difference being other talking the talk instead of walking the walk.
Ah, the good ole "circle of death" a.k.a appeal to nature fallacy.
We have to feed the animal mass, hence the double impact on environment. Your argument is actually in favor of veganism, not against it.
To live and be dead at the same time? That sure sounds logical. Veganism is about reducing harm done to animals as much as is practically possible.
Some people choose even closer point than you in how evil they're willing to be. Without going into gory examples, I guess you'd just be content with it? I mean even if it's not illegal doesn't mean it's right, right?
Yes, exactly like lions.
"When humans eat flesh, we don't actually tear it with our cuspids. Instead, we soften meat with cooking and then pre-tear it with utensils before grinding it down with our flattened molars, which are particularly well-suited for chewing vegetation." Source
You buying your meat at the store, nicely vacuumed has nothing to do with nature. Despite any lion fantasies.
This is an example of the laziness I was talking about in the earlier comment.
Now this is not lazy. It's 4D chess or something. Anyway I've lost the plot already.
You could try that at a comedy club. (A place not run by Nazis ofc.)
Yes, that's unfortunate. Hope they get the treatment they deserve.
Factory farming has a goal alright. It's to destroy the global ecosystem and bring profit to multi national corporations while doing it. In fact, if most of the population went plant based, the soil would be used to grow stuff that could be utilized straight by humans, thus removing the animal from the equation. Also, there would be enough of food to easily feed the whole world population.
Something being natural makes it more sustainable.
Depending on how much meat you're producing, you can do it in a manner which isn't that damaging to the environment. Chickens don't require that much food but they produce enough to feed a family, and cows can live off of grass if you don't try and produce too many of them.
Killing ourselves would be a great way to do that, yes. Humanity is the world's single most prolific and destructive invasive species.
Well yes, obviously, if I was less moralistic then I'd be able to be content with much more evil in this world, however, some evil can be greatly reduced without inconveniencing civilization very much (unlike removing meat from the human diet), so there's no need to be content with it.
This does not disprove my main point that humans evolved to eat meat.
Yes, that's why I wish to go hunt deer or something. The meat will probably taste better and procurement will be much more fulfilling than your average grocery trip because the thrill of the hunt is what our minds and bodies long for.
It is the biological imperative of all living creatures to be as lazy as possible.
The point is to show that your logic on who it is and isn't ok to make fun of are easy to distort.
The reason why you'd be removed from the premises is because the audience doesn't like your joke, which is what I'm proposing we use as the arbiter of comedy here instead of what direction you're punching in. And if you did somehow make a funny joke about Jews, which I've seen examples of, then people will probably laugh at it.
Then why do we still make fun of them? According to your logic, it'd be considered punching down, since non-offending pedophiles objectively do no harm and are a marginalized group. The answer, of course, is because they can be a source of good jokes, and because you don't hear them complaining about it, or anyone complaining on their behalf.
I don't think corporations care about the first part, and the way they actually get the second part is by feeding people.
We don't need to remove the animal entirely from the equation in order to have a good-enough supply chain.
There already is, the fact that anyone starves is a failure of logistics, not the fact that we eat meat.