1363
submitted 1 year ago by UhBell@lemmy.world to c/memes@lemmy.ml
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] BachenBenno@feddit.de 72 points 1 year ago

The difference is that the fish needs to eat the other fish. We don't need ANY animal products. So every killed animal suffered and lost their life for 10min of taste for us that we didn't need. Being vegan is so easy in 2023.

[-] notenoughbutter@lemmy.ml 37 points 1 year ago

taste

what about vitamins? proteins and other nutrients

like omega 3 fatty acid majorly found in fishes

[-] agoseris@lemm.ee 45 points 1 year ago

There are plenty of plant sources of Omega 3. Flax seeds, walnuts, soybeans, and canola oil all have decent amounts of omega 3 in them. As for protein, legumes generally have a bunch.

Really, the only thing a vegan needs to supplement is B12, but even that gets added to a bunch of stuff like breakfast cereals and plant milks if you consume those.

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] Azathoth@feddit.de 34 points 1 year ago

You can take them as supplements. It's the same for your body. Oh and you are already doing that, because they give supplements to the animals they raise and kill, we are just eliminating the middleman.

load more comments (20 replies)
load more comments (36 replies)
[-] Pagliacci@lemmy.ml 72 points 1 year ago

Agreed, if a bear can eat a person why can't I eat a person?!

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Duke_Nukem_1990@feddit.de 63 points 1 year ago

OP will be real dangerous when he learns fish also don't ask for consent.

[-] pazukaza@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 year ago

They don't? I've been wasting my time.

[-] MiddleWeigh@lemmy.world 46 points 1 year ago

Something needs to die for you to survive, what and how much is up to your individual tolerance for input/output ratio.

Death and suffering is a natural state of being in nature. I can reduce it, but I still need to survive.

I hate fishing. I don't need to fish in my current station. If I did, I would fish.

[-] Zozano@aussie.zone 56 points 1 year ago

Exactly. Pretty common misconception about vegan ideology. Vegans don't think people in developing nations have a moral imperative to change their ways because they don't have an alternative.

I don't need to eat meat, so I don't.

load more comments (20 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] debil@lemmy.world 45 points 1 year ago

sigh Came from reddit to lemmy, still see stupid af carnist memes like this. Don't know if it's a win or what for the fediverse

[-] DTFpanda@lemmy.world 44 points 1 year ago

I'm sorry, but I laughed at carnist. Lighten up.

[-] Rachelhazideas@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

Relax, I'm a carnist/flexitarian. There's nothing wrong with attributing a name to non-vegans/non-vegetarians. The world isn't divided into vegans/vegetarians and so called 'normal people'. It's just as normal to not eat meat in some parts of the world.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] spicysoup@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

https://carnism.org/carnism/

you lighten up on the animal exploitation maybe?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (22 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] ziltoid101@lemmy.world 45 points 1 year ago

Nobody is saying that fish are moral agents that can empathise with other beings. That doesn't man that they're not moral subjects; the ability to understand that one is causing harm is not a prerequisite for the ability to suffer oneself. I think everyone knows this intuitively, but it does feel good to have our less moral habits be justified by memes that we would otherwise find to be illogical.

load more comments (38 replies)
[-] django@discuss.tchncs.de 37 points 1 year ago

How come fish can eat their own offspring but we can't do the same to ours?

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] HiddenLayer5@lemmy.ml 36 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You consider humans superior in intellect and ability compared to all other animals yet can't grasp the fact that some humans have chosen to use said superior intellect and ability to avoid killing other animals?

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] artaxthehappyhorse@lemmy.ml 36 points 1 year ago

By this logic, is it fair game to eat people who eat animals?

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Rhoeri@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago

I’m not on either side of the argument, but would guess a good argument would be that fish need to eat other fish in order to survive as it’s their only source of food. We don’t. Provenly.

load more comments (37 replies)
[-] hungryphrog 32 points 1 year ago

I have never understood this logic. If a lion eats a zebra, there's nothing wrong with it, but when a human eats a cow, they're a horrible person. (also I know that not all vegans think like this)

I personally believe there's nothing inherently wrong with eating meat, and instead the problem is how we treat the animals we eat and that we eat way too much meat, taking it for granted.

[-] BraBraBra@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

We are intelligent and capable of considering the idea that an animal may not want to die, and we have it within our means to survive without meat, or with much less meat than we currently consume.

Animals who are being lead to slaughter have been observed to panic and try to flee. They do not want to die. What right do we have to take the life of an animal that wants to live as much as any other person? We are capable of considering this question. Animals are not. That's the difference.

Even as a carnivore you would not eat a freshly born baby straight out of the mother's womb, whereas any other predator would see it as an easy meal. There IS a moral implication in taking life.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Ilandar@aussie.zone 15 points 1 year ago

I agree with your second paragraph, but the appeal to nature is not a good argument and routinely gets exposed as such in debates on the ethics of meat consumption. There are very clear differences between a lion and a human.

[-] TrismegistusMx@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

The very clear difference is that you discriminate against humans.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] alamani@lemmy.fmhy.ml 13 points 1 year ago

Arguing that something's okay because it's a natural behaviour is the naturalistic fallacy. The difference is that other species don't have any choice over how they live or even the mental capacity to think about the morality of their actions. Humans that are well-off and don't have medical conditions that clash with veganism do.

I used to agree with the second paragraph, but watching videos of pigs/cows/chickens being slaughtered changed my mind. Imo their prior treatment doesn't really negate what happens there- and even if it did, I couldn't use ideal farm conditions as a defense when the vast majority of meat I've been eating is raised under less ideal conditions.

(This isn't calling anyone who eats a burger satan, to be clear. Just trying to say my views in good faith.)

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] tweeks@feddit.nl 18 points 1 year ago

As far as value goes, I don't particularly value my own life or that of a fish. I do value the suffering of both while living though, as in I want to minimise that as much as possible.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] chase_what_matters@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

Can someone explain this template to me?

[-] UhBell@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

I'm afraid that's classified information

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] TommySalami@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

This is why I'm a pesca-pescatarian. I only eat fish that eat other fish.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Underwaterbob@lemm.ee 13 points 1 year ago

I suppose it was only a matter of time before the vegans vs meat eaters oozed on over from Reddit.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Chickerino@feddit.nl 12 points 1 year ago

Buy a man eat fish, he day, teach fish man, to a lifetime

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] sickpusy@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 year ago

The best argument against vegans is always the fact that plants also are living beings. Now if you are gonna create hierarchy of living beings to justify your food consumption, well...

[-] SQL_InjectMe@partizle.com 16 points 1 year ago

Cows don’t photosynthesize they eat a shit ton of plants to make a tiny amount of meat so if you really care about plants you would eat the plants directly and skip the middlemen that waste 90% of the plant matter

[-] door_in_the_face@feddit.nl 14 points 1 year ago

Plants aren't sentient though, that's a pretty good reason to put them lower on the hierarchy of living beings that are morally ok to eat. And it's quite likely that fewer plants die for a vegan diet than for a standard diet, as animals need a lot of feed to produce meat, eggs and dairy. Some percentage of the plant protein, fats, and carbs will always be lost along the way when we feed them to animals, so eating those plants directly is more efficient.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] necrxfagivs@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

Plants aren't sentient and you need more plants to feed a cow (and then eat the cow) than if you just eat plant-based.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2023
1363 points (100.0% liked)

Memes

45729 readers
724 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 5 years ago
MODERATORS