826
But I love death (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 years ago by Toppa@lemmy.world to c/memes@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] DanglingFury@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

You gotta let people be people. Shaming someone for their dietary choices is not cool. Not everyone shares the same beliefs and that is fine.

I personally believe that people should not eat meat unless they have what it takes to kill it themselves so they understand what goes into it. Too many people eat meat all the time without understanding that something has to die for it to get there. I also disagree with mass agribusiness indoor livestock operations.

[-] oshitwaddup@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz 17 points 2 years ago

When someones dietary choice causes huge amounts of needless suffering and death to the victim (the innocent animal that was exploited and killed) then that's not "fine". That's a serious injustice that should be pointed out (at the very least)

[-] Surface_Detail@lemmy.ml 19 points 2 years ago

Wait, fish can eat other fish, but I can't? How's that fair?

[-] FIST_FILLET@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 years ago

i know this may be a shock but fish haven’t reached the industrialization part of civilization yet. they do not have the capabilities to grow crops and harvest them and make dishes

[-] Surface_Detail@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago

I mean, meat is still murder, right?

[-] MemeSink@reddthat.com 9 points 2 years ago

So you're using the "Lions rape and murder, therefore it's okay to do the same." argument?

Weak.

[-] Surface_Detail@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago

Where do you stand on roe? Fish eggs.

[-] oshitwaddup@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz 13 points 2 years ago

animals in the wild do a lot of unethical shit

[-] Surface_Detail@lemmy.ml 16 points 2 years ago

Monsters, all of them. Someone should eat them, just to keep the others safe.

[-] r1veRRR@feddit.de 5 points 2 years ago

Think about the argument you're making here: "Wild animals do X, therefore humans should be allowed to do X". I hope you understand how horrible this argument is. Here's a fun little list of things animals do:

  • Eat their young
  • Grape
  • Murder each other for status or access to women
  • shit on the floor in public
[-] Surface_Detail@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago

That's your take on my argument. I haven't extended it beyond the ethics of meat eating.

[-] ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Than why am I not allowed to eat other humans? They are made out of meat, too. And why do we not allow animals to eat humans?

[-] Surface_Detail@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago

We do actually allow animals to eat humans. There is no law anywhere that forbids a shark from eating a person.

As for people eating people, it's a cultural taboo, like putting your elbows on the dinner table.

[-] ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 1 points 2 years ago

Why do you think I was talking about the legal framework? We take active measures in stopping animals from eating humans. You could make an argument that we even punish animals when they do eat a human, granted we have a chance to do that. Bears, wolves and dogs are shot regularly, after they have attacked a human. Sharks also have been killed when it was thought that they actively prey on humans. We do not allow it.

When you want to talk about laws it is considered murder to slaughter a person as feed for animals. It is also considered murder to kill a person to eat them. Murdering people is forbidden by law.

[-] Surface_Detail@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago

I mean, animals take active steps to stop humans eating them too. We even have laws to protect species of animals that have killed humans. Tiger hunting, as an example, is illegal.

Honestly, we're much nicer to animals than animals are to us or they are to other animals.

[-] ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 1 points 2 years ago

I don't see how the way animals treat humans or other animals is relevant for the discussion about the ethics of meat eating. They aren't nice so we can kill them to eat their meat is certainly not an ethical argument.

Animals try to stop humans from eating them because they do not want to get hurt. Or, if you want to be more precise, hurting and frightening them is a stimulation that induces intense negative emotions in animals which leads them to defend themselves. That is to distinguish them from plants, which also defend themselves, but without having emotions in between. The negative emotions in between is what we call suffering. And even in the ethics of hedonism, less suffering is better.

We have laws to protect animals because most humans agree that animals are in a weaker position when compared to humans. They are very much at our mercy.

load more comments (13 replies)
[-] swan@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago

I’ll be thinking of you while I eat my steak today

[-] roux@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 years ago

I won't think about you at all.

[-] r1veRRR@feddit.de 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Some beliefs lead to immoral outcomes. I'm absolutely certain you can think of quite a few beliefs like that, right? Just picture a hill billy from Alabama, are all his beliefs fine?

In the end, morals is applied ethics, and politics is applied morals. We absolutely should legislate and not tolerate bad beliefs. The vague idea that "everyone has their own belief/opinion and we have to respect it" is a thought terminating cliche that makes the world a worse place. My dad wants me to respect his antivax beliefs, my grandfather wants me to respect his climate change denialism beliefs. Should I?

load more comments (4 replies)
this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2023
826 points (100.0% liked)

Memes

49400 readers
1248 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS