7 ms·
Unnecessary violence that is sustainable is still unnecessary violence. You don't need to eat any animals to thrive, so choosing to do so is simply choosing to
by sweetheart 5y ago
Unnecessary violence that is sustainable is still unnecessary violence. You don't need to eat any animals to thrive, so choosing to do so is simply choosing to induce suffering for ephemeral, meaningless pleasure.
- yesco 5y agoYour appeal to emotion is unconvincing
- sweetheart 5y agoYeah it’s sad how few people are able to grasp the simple concept that we ought to avoid unnecessary suffering, regardless of species.
- prepend 5y agoProviding safe, efficient nutrients is not unnecessary suffering. I believe it is necessary. And animals can be slaughtered in humane ways with minima suffering (eg, halal, kosher, and other methods). Animals can process inarable land and turn it into nutrients. I can have a cow graze on land that can’t grow edible food for humans and turn it into edible food. That’s efficient.
- sweetheart 5y agoWhen you can get all the safe and efficient nutrients from living things that do not suffer, then any suffering is unnecessary.
- Nbox9 5y agoThat’s because it’s a logical appeal. The argument is: Eating meat causes suffering to the animal. Eating meat is unnecessary for a human life. Eating meat causes unnecessary suffering.
- yesco 5y agoOkay then your "logical appeal" is unconvincing, I disagree that eating meat is uneccessary.
- sweetheart 5y agoYou disagree with every major nutritional and dietetic institute around the world. Google it.
- yesco 5y agoNo, provide me the sources if you want to use them as a part of your argument.
- sweetheart 5y agoOkay. https://youaretheirvoice.com/pages/the-clear-consensus https://youaretheirvoice.com/pages/the-clear-consensus Enjoy.
- cercatrova 5y agoIn an argument, if you're trying to convince the other person to support your beliefs, you wouldn't use clearly biased sources like you did here. I have no argument with you specifically but just pointing it out for the future that people will dismiss any biased sources you give them, which is probably not what you want the outcome to be in an argumentative fashion.
- sweetheart 5y agoYou mean Kaiser Permanente? And Harvard Medical School? And The American Institute for Cancer Research? And the British Dietetic Association? And the Mayo Clinic? What biases are you talking about?
- 5y ago
- tsimionescu 5y agoAnimals die violently regardless of human actions. If you want to prevent violent, painful deaths, you should be going around the forest euthanizing animals.
- sweetheart 5y agoHow do you think that will prevent horrible deaths? Will the animals that need to hunt and eat prey suddenly not be hungry?
- radu_floricica 5y agoI never found a satisfactory answer to this question: if we stop eating domestic animals, they won't frolic forever in an idyllic wilderness - they'll just stop existing, completely. Do you prefer them not existing, to being eaten by people? And once you've answered - how would you feel about hyper advanced aliens coming to our corner of the universe and being horrified of all the pain and misery on earth, with a finger on a button that'll painlessly stop us from existing.
- sweetheart 5y agoYeah we should stop breeding animals into existence only to live short and unimaginably cruel lives. They won’t go extinct though, if that’s what you mean. There will always be cows and chickens and pigs. Just far far fewer. The huge difference between your hypothetical and reality is that the aliens are actively committing genocide and im merely a proponent of not forcefully impregnating more animals to get them pregnant so I can profit off them. If human beings were kept in conditions like those we find animals and at the same scale, and the aliens came and were horrified then I’d beg them to press the button that stops humans from being raped and impregnated at mass scale solely for the babies to be processed.
- radu_floricica 5y agoOk, so that's most pig and chicken. And btw I totally agree with you here. How about most cows and sheep? The question is, for me, pretty important, because it moves the bulk of the focus from "don' eat meat" to "dramatically improve farming conditions".