8 ms·
Calling it an art does not make it less cruel. That something is lucrative does not mean it's nice (ask slavery victims). Please consider not buying animal prod
by cies 6y ago
Calling it an art does not make it less cruel. That something is lucrative does not mean it's nice (ask slavery victims). Please consider not buying animal products, you can easily do without it. Thank you.
- Bancakes 6y agoNot easily.
- 082349872349872 6y agoMy family eats meat[1] in general yet has had no trouble avoiding chicken[2] specifically. [1] Dairy farmers maximising milk output for feed input is why there is veal. (Confining veal calves is illegal here, and labelling is enforced to the point that even restaurant waiters must be able to tell you the provenance of their meats.) [2] We do occasionally take free range eggs.
- cies 6y agoWith so many replacements products, it has never been easier. A replacement is at hand within a few meters of the animal derived product in most modern supermarkets. Also, Youtube is full of inspiration of how to replace any animal derived product. It's never been easier. I think its more the will, than the ability, that's needed. And if someone considers some products "too hard to switch away from" then, just keep buying that one and skip the others. Dont like cruelty to animals? Then stop buying it. It's that simple.
- Bancakes 6y agoWhat I'm saying is, it's really easy for me to boil a dozen eggs, grill some chicken bits, and boil half a pack of brown rice or quinoa. A week's worth of food, the caloric density is astounding. I then only need to make salads or play with frozen veggies. All of this is really cheap and quick to make. Almond/coconut/soy milk costs nearly three times as much as cow's milk in my country, and the substitute 'meats' are hard to find outside supermarkets. Veganism here might as well be money laundering. To my knowledge, beyond burgers and such food is still pricey in the USA as well, for instance. I'm just pointing out what makes me consider vegetarianism or veganism is eating more food, better food, for less money, and less pretentious heat treatment. I'm not finding it right now. Hopeful for the future, though.
- jamil7 6y agoDried beans, lentils, pulses and brown rice are cheap and dense in calories + protein. Throw some seasonal vegetables in when you have them. Eat some cut oats for breakfast. Nothing pretentious about that! You don't need all the processed meat substitutes, they're not especially healthy either. Also cows milk surely must be more expensive than oat milk to produce, but we all live in countries where dairy is heavily subsidized.
- waterhouse 6y agoCheerful meat-eater here. I think that, if you got your protein through legumes, that would be even cheaper than eggs. It would probably mean rearchitecting your food in general rather than using drop-in replacements. One website says that the cheapest eggs on its list (Costco) are 70 grams of protein per dollar, while the cheapest beans (pinto) are 80 grams per dollar, and lentils are 116 grams per dollar. Hmm, that difference is smaller than I expected. https://efficiencyiseverything.com/calorie-per-dollar-list/ https://efficiencyiseverything.com/calorie-per-dollar-list/
- Bancakes 6y agoThat's awesome, however I also enjoy a varied diet. Thanks for the link.
- hazz99 6y agoMillions of people in India eat a very varied, inexpensive vegetarian diet. And their food tastes great.
- ceejayoz 6y agoI’d really like to see someone do the math on how many animals get killed growing plant-based meat substitutes. Mice sucked up when they harvest the corn, bugs sprayed with pesticides, etc. Pasture-raised grass-fed beef might come out way better in comparison.
- graphpapa 6y agoThis makes it sound like plant based diets are much crueler than they make out to be - but that harm is surely still an order of magnitude reduced compared to farming animals? One is collateral damage (mice sucked up etc.) but the other is _premised_ on death.
- ceejayoz 6y ago> but that harm is surely still an order of magnitude reduced compared to farming animals? Probably true if you compare it to conventional cattle farming, as they're largely fed corn from fields. I suspect pasture raised, grass fed animals have a vastly lower deaths-per-bite count than a veggie burger, though. I don't know that I subscribe to the "accidental deaths matter less" argument, either.
- cies 6y agoA wild animal that inadvertently dies is not the same as a caged animal that is killed. But yes, even plant foods incur animal suffering. Vegans know. Much, much less though. > Pasture-raised grass-fed beef might come out way better in comparison. If you consider a bugs life equal to a cows life: yes. Most people dont. I kill bugs when I drive my car, if I'd kill cows at the same rate as bug when driving, I'd stop driving.
- taneq 6y agoI see this kind of whataboutism almost every time people discuss the ethics of meat consumption and the surrounding industries. If growing plants commercially kills animals in the process then that's something else to examine but it doesn't change the fact that meat based industries are usually incredibly cruel.
- vbezhenar 6y agoPlants can feel pain. Please eat rocks.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- cies 6y agoAnimals eat plants too, so you significantly reduce plant pain by consuming them directly. Also: fruit are plant based but are "given" by the plant, the plant survives. Finally, a plant's "pain" is VERY different from animal pain. Where animal pain is in many cases/ways the same as human pain.
- MisterTea 6y agoNothing quite beats the videos of live male chicks getting tossed down a chute and strait into a shredder like garbage at a recycling center.
- Ntrails 6y agoAh yes, the old "Eating/Kepping animals is just like slavery, you're all monsters" chestnut... Do you really think that anyone is going to see this comment and reconsider eating meat, or wearing leather? Because "that nice _cies_ person on the internet told me I'm a terrible human being"?
- hazz99 6y agoI doubt they expect that. It might, however, encourage others to think about it a bit more. Their message was very polite, simply pointing out the existence of other lifestyles, and barring personal tastes, it’s functionally not difficult to change your own.
- cies 6y agoI just think that calling chick sexing a "lucrative art" is disgusting to me, and I expressed that. If that makes you re-evaluate your choices in life, that could be great for the chicks. I never called you a terrible human.
- Fjolsvith 6y agoYou got to experience cancel culture.
- scandox 6y agoI'm amazed at the aggression this comment is getting. There's a strong moral argument for not eating meat. There's a distinct but also reasonable argument for not consuming derivative products. It's a sane position and I think it can be advocated for. I can eat meat and still believe I may be wrong in doing so. There's absolutely no reason to take this quite polite advocacy as a personal attack.
- sjg007 6y agoWhat is the moral argument?
- claudiawerner 6y agoThere are several arguments listed at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy[0]; namely, the argument from animal suffering, the argument from animal killing, the argument from environmental damage, and the argument from harm to humans. These are compatible not just with utilitarian moral frameworks, but a variety of metaethical theories. I'm not aware of any theory which has convincingly been able to show that animals are not worthy of moral consideration (but all humans are). Similarly, I'm not aware of any theory which successfully argues that human pleasure from eating meat outweighs the suffering of the animals (without also applying to a variety of human behaviours). Justification like that usually entails that the suffering is necessary, yet moral vegetarianism does make any claim as far as people who need to eat meat (or at least purchase meat or kill animals) for dietary reasons. [0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vegetarianism/#ScheCaseAgaiMeatProd https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vegetarianism/#ScheCaseAg...
- sjg007 6y agoI could see a moral argument in favor of vegetarianism or veganism because it is better for the environment and prevents global warming which in turn is better for humanity and our long term existence. But even then technology may be able to mitigate the impact. For example, feeding ruminants red algae.
- javert 6y ago
- galoisgirl 6y agoVegetarians have animal blood on their hands as well: https://theconversation.com/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-theres-more-animal-blood-on-your-hands-4659 https://theconversation.com/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-the...
- hazz99 6y agoThis is based on existing farming practices and the second and third order effects of using crop land. It’s entirely possible to grow plants without harming animals, but it’s impossible to eat meat without harm (barring research into lab-grown meat) One can envision a future where more crops can grown on a smaller footprint with future agricultural developments (e.g hydroponics, multi level farms, etc) It also ignores the fact that the production of red meat is incredibly bad for the environment, and one of the large contributors to greenhouse gases. This argument feels similar to criticisms of electric cars because generating energy currently hurts the environment, but this ignores the future potential of widespread renewable energy, with which petroleum vehicles are incompatible.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- abstractbarista 6y agoNo thanks, I enjoy killing and eating animals. It's my prerogative as a human animal.