214
What hills are you dying on?
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 May 2025
214 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
49720 readers
298 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Being vegan is a moral base line.
Counter argument, I need to eat and I can catch seafood myself without contributing towards capitalism. Isn't a full diet but its a start. Can make it into a full meal with some rice.
How is that a counter argument?
I need to eat food. You can't really just state the moral base line is not to eat
You don't need to eat animals tho?
Must be nice being rich enough to eat what ever you feel like having. Some of us are not so fortunate and have to make do with what is available.
Rice and beans are only for the wealthy I guess.
Assuming fish don't have feelings, it is fine. But if fish have 0.1% the moral weight of a human being, can you say you're worth more than 1000 fish?
It's not that i disagree, but can you elaborate on that?
Inflicting pain and suffering is bad, especially if done for selfish reasons, like pleasure (and tbh if someone were to disagree with that, I'd dont want to talk to them). Exploiting animals is exactly that, taste pleasure to be exact.
classic first worlder with their elevated standard of living:
I am not disagreeing with you there is a fine line between acceptable and gluttonous, but acting holier than though, just cause you insistently chew grass and destroy your gut biome doesn't help the animals
Would you be happier with the moral baseline being "Whoever can go vegan, should"?
BTW. there is only one world :)
eating meat doesn't inflict any pain or suffering though.
It does, because the meat industry is tremendously abusive to animals. Ontop of that it's a poor use of land and it contributes greatly to global warming. But for sure, the animals feel pain and suffering assuming it is possible for them to do so. Trillions of shrimp die horribly painful deaths every year, but nobody cares because they have a funny-sounding name.
all of that can be true without necessitating veganism
Moral baseline is not a necessity. It's a comparison point. Basically, if you're not vegan, you should be doing something else to end up net-positive (from a utilitarian point of view). I'm not vegan, I'm vegetarian, so I'm in the negatives I guess.
you are splitting hairs
none of this makes eating meat cause pain or suffering. these are all problems with production, not consumption.
Describe a way to eat meat that doesn't require prior suffering then.
an event in the future cannot cause an event in the past. eating the meat doesn't cause it to have been produced.
I am not interested in discussing meta-physics. For you to eat meat, an animal suffered. That is the point.
eating meat doesn't cause an animal to have suffered.
no, it's not
oh but it is
How are you going to get vitamin B12 while being vegan? As far as I know it's not possible.
By supplementing it. As should people who are not vegan, cause B12 is one of the most common deficiencies.
Anytime someone mentions veganism, there has to be a discussion on plants. Interesting how you suddenly care about vegetables.
Vegetables are not sentient, and even if they were, it requires fewer plants if you eat them directly instead of feeding them to an animal first for years, and then killing the animal.
I'm actually not interested in talking to you, but perhaps someone will read this and realize how absurd it is to compare chopping vegetables to slicing the throat of an animal.
Oh I am sure you are completely honest! As the good plants rights activist that you clearly are, you of course already know that it takes many more plants to raise animals for slaughter than eating them directly.
And on a more serious note: plants don't feel shit. They don't have a central nervous system to even process a concept like pain.
Ah no more """arguments""" so you are going for the ad hominem huh? Good luck with that.
BTW. I am eating a big juicy plant right now.
*bigger ass than you :)
A kid i went to school with couldnt feel pain due to nerve damage. He loved playing knuckles but no one could beat him. So you belive if he didn't feel pain it was okay to use brass knuckle against him.
You just called me a piece of shit. I am sure you have better things to do with your life (like playing knuckles) than talking to a piece of shit.