this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2023
578 points (89.7% liked)

Funny: Home of the Haha

5560 readers
949 users here now

Welcome to /c/funny, a place for all your humorous and amusing content.

Looking for mods! Send an application to Stamets!

Our Rules:

  1. Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.

  2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.

  3. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.


Other Communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kookaloo@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Could you explain which part of eating meat is wrong? We have evolved to what we are today, thanks largely to our ancestors' diets.

[–] Kedly@lemm.ee 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (43 children)

One pretty consistent moral among societies is that needlessly causing harm is considered wrong. Outside of lab grown, its impossible to acquire meat without grievously harming an animal. Further, the vast majority of our meat is NOT gained by hunting but instead by factory, and the conditions of meat factories are appalling and horrific. So yes, if we CAN get the nutrients we need without the consumption of meat, that is the most moral way to get our nutrition met. All that being said, even today, being able to meet all nutritional needs without any form of animal cruelty is an incredibly privileged position to be in, and we arent quite at the stage where its fair to judge others for not doing so

(edit: and I say this as a meat eater, meat is fuckin delicious and I dont want to give it up. I'm personally banking on lab grown meat becoming an economical option, at which point we have removed the ethical muddiness of it)

(Edit 2: Lmao, I ruffled the feathers of a lot of meat eaters who've likely never actually had to kill any if the animals they've eaten. I have, I still eat meat. Reality is messy, fucking own it)

[–] GladiusB@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Well hunting is a pain in the ass as it is. In an industrialized society we traded markets with shared goods to more specific specialties. Sure I can hunt for food because of licenses and availability but the trade off is most of the people have really good health care. At least objectively they have access to healthcare that can cure things that back in the 1500s would kill you within days.

My point is that at some point someone said "Hey I can take care of the meat portion if you take care of (insert many specialists careers)." There was no morality involved. Choosing to be vegan is fine. I think that it's easier to get certain things from animal sources. So does nature.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

One pretty consistent moral among societies is that needlessly causing harm is considered wrong.

besides your total lack of specificity about ethical systems or societies in which they exist, your use of "needlessly" is doing a lot of work there. on the one hand it sets up a no-true-scotsman where you can always claim no need is great enough, but it also gives anyone challenging this claim a loophole the size of a walmart to walk through: just claim it's necessary.

i don't think you really understand the claim you made. worse, if you do, that means you're intentionally using vague language and intellectually dishonest tactics to persuade. this is called sophistry.

[–] Kedly@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Im kinda done arguing with dumbasses in good faith about whether or not killing an animal is less ethical than not killing one. I'm a meat eater, I find meat delicious, and I ALSO recognise that most of the world isnt in a privileged enough position to NOT eat meat in order to fulfill their dietary needs. None of this takes away from the fact that killing is less ethical than not killiing

[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Im kinda done arguing with dumbasses in good faith about whether or not killing an animal is less ethical than not killing one.

Abso-fucking-lutely based. Sometimes it's better to just call a dumbass, 'a dumbass' than engage with their bullshit sealioning.

[–] tdawg@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

bullshit sealioning

stealing this

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (41 replies)
[–] echodot@feddit.uk 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And some civilisations practised human sacrifice. "We did it in the past" isn't really an arguement.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] tweeks@feddit.nl 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's only wrong if you believe hurting other living things is wrong, it depends on your upbringing / mental framework and how you relate those between different species.

But I believe most people agree that the current way we mass produce meat and how we treat these animals is like a dystopian endgame. If humans were treated like that by a higher intelligence that would be extremely disturbing and cruel. We just accept it as we place the priority on a steak on our plate.

It is how it is, everyone is ignorant or a hypocrite in some parts of life. Good or bad are only subjective perspectives. But if you look at the harm we cause to other beings with eating meat and in what mechanistic way, that might be one of the things in 100 years we look back at and just can't fathom.

[–] Sludgeyy@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Our ancestors hunted wild animals

Industrialized meat production is horrible and wrong

That's the part that is wrong

Let a pig have a happy life, then kill it. There is no need to force feed it in a coffin size pen for its whole life.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago

That's an incredible weak argument. Our ancestors did all kinds of stuff which lead to societies prosperity. Doesn't make all of it morally right.