4 ms·

I have yet to meet an omnivore who would do it [edit: omnivore instead of carnist]

jlg23 8y ago
Visit arid Africa: eating an animal before it was /used properly/ (could be as simple as fertilizing the land here in southern Morocco) is considered wasteful.
- croisillon 8y ago
  do they eat animals dead of old age?
  - lostlogin 8y ago
    Can something die solely because it’s old?
    - benj111 8y ago
      Does my car stop working because its old? Strictly speaking no, there will be a cause of failure, in practice everything wears out, age has increased the chances of things wearing out, so after a certain point age becomes a 'good enough' reason. I suppose if you want to be pedantic, a common failure mode isn't actually 'correct'. A heart attack isn't the cause of death, its oxygen starvation, so I'm not sure more 'correct' equals more useful.
  - Arnt 8y ago
    I wouldn't know about Africa. But I know a thing or two about keeping animals at the edge of the arctic. If you butcher when the animals are old, you have quite a bit lower risk of losing the meat due to disease, because old animals fall ill more than young ones. If you butcher, you have some control over the timing, which helps with using the food. You don't have perfect control, but more than random, and you reduce the risk of having to throw anything away. So if you use the animals both live and dead, it makes sense to optimise for keeping them alive long and die while still healthy (healthy enough to eat/use, if you want to be cynic).
jjgreen 8y ago
Omnivores are generally polite enough to call vegans that which you call themselves, perhaps you'd like to return the favour?
- croisillon 8y ago
  sorry the term didn't come to my mind, I updated my comment
  - jjgreen 8y ago
    Thank you
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  Were you offended by the parents use of a term for meat-eater? Your's seems like a needless correction; it didn't seem at all impolite. People choose all sorts of inaccurate terms for themselves, your reasoning doesn't seem particularly sound either.
  - jjgreen 8y ago
    Carnist, I believe, is a term used by vegans to refer to those who support ideologically that it is acceptable to use animals for food, rather than someone who eats meat. There are people who do not eat meat, for religious or cultural reasons, and those are generally referred to a vegans, in the same way there are those who eat meat for cultural reasons (my father did it, his father did it, I've never really thought about it) rather than supporting some ideology. For vegans to label meat eaters (more accurately omnivores) as carnist, their ideological/political opponents is, well, not really offensive, but it does rankle. As social psychologists say, there is no in-group cohesion without out-group hostility, but it is a shame for vegans (for which I have some sympathy) to isolate themselves in this manner, particularly if they want to change the world for the better.

Visit arid Africa: eating an animal before it was /used properly/ (could be as simple as fertilizing the land here in southern Morocco) is considered wasteful.

croisillon 8y ago
do they eat animals dead of old age?
- lostlogin 8y ago
  Can something die solely because it’s old?
  - benj111 8y ago
    Does my car stop working because its old? Strictly speaking no, there will be a cause of failure, in practice everything wears out, age has increased the chances of things wearing out, so after a certain point age becomes a 'good enough' reason. I suppose if you want to be pedantic, a common failure mode isn't actually 'correct'. A heart attack isn't the cause of death, its oxygen starvation, so I'm not sure more 'correct' equals more useful.
- Arnt 8y ago
  I wouldn't know about Africa. But I know a thing or two about keeping animals at the edge of the arctic. If you butcher when the animals are old, you have quite a bit lower risk of losing the meat due to disease, because old animals fall ill more than young ones. If you butcher, you have some control over the timing, which helps with using the food. You don't have perfect control, but more than random, and you reduce the risk of having to throw anything away. So if you use the animals both live and dead, it makes sense to optimise for keeping them alive long and die while still healthy (healthy enough to eat/use, if you want to be cynic).

jjgreen 8y ago

Omnivores are generally polite enough to call vegans that which you call themselves, perhaps you'd like to return the favour?

croisillon 8y ago
sorry the term didn't come to my mind, I updated my comment
- jjgreen 8y ago
  Thank you
pbhjpbhj 8y ago
Were you offended by the parents use of a term for meat-eater? Your's seems like a needless correction; it didn't seem at all impolite. People choose all sorts of inaccurate terms for themselves, your reasoning doesn't seem particularly sound either.
- jjgreen 8y ago
  Carnist, I believe, is a term used by vegans to refer to those who support ideologically that it is acceptable to use animals for food, rather than someone who eats meat. There are people who do not eat meat, for religious or cultural reasons, and those are generally referred to a vegans, in the same way there are those who eat meat for cultural reasons (my father did it, his father did it, I've never really thought about it) rather than supporting some ideology. For vegans to label meat eaters (more accurately omnivores) as carnist, their ideological/political opponents is, well, not really offensive, but it does rankle. As social psychologists say, there is no in-group cohesion without out-group hostility, but it is a shame for vegans (for which I have some sympathy) to isolate themselves in this manner, particularly if they want to change the world for the better.