4 ms·

I mean you’re calling attention to the word you’re ignoring: “whenever.” You’re basically saying some suffering is fine as long as it’s suffering you’re fine wi

I mean you’re calling attention to the word you’re ignoring: “whenever.” You’re basically saying some suffering is fine as long as it’s suffering you’re fine with. Don’t get me wrong, that is a 100% valid attitude to have. But don’t pretend like you’re trying to avoid animal suffering whenever possible — because you’re clearly not. > The slaughtering is not really the problem to me Also lol at this. Makes it easy to avoid animal suffering if being slaughtered doesn’t count as suffering to you.

hutzlibu 4y ago
Suffering is part of the world. I just try to minimize it, I do not believe it can be avoided. Do you believe differently in general?
- paulcole 4y ago
  I’ll agree that there’s no way to eliminate suffering. But you can continue to reduce your creation of suffering in animals by not eating meat. It’s fine if that’s a decision you’re not willing to make. But if you say, “I just try to minimize suffering” and then continue to eat meat, you should instead say, “I just try to minimize suffering that I can’t justify to myself.” Otherwise you’re lying to yourself because you’re doing one thing and saying another.
  - hutzlibu 4y ago
    "I just try to minimize suffering that I can’t justify to myself" That is clearly implied, isn't it? There is almost no action, that does not directly or indirectly creates (potential) suffering. Normal agriculture creates a lot of suffering by poisoning the earth and the animals within. But even the most ecological agriculture creates suffering. First, by making a forest to a field. Wild animals and plants had to go away, so that the corn can grow. But yes, growing corn in an ecological way minimizes suffering by comparing it with growing corn in the most toxic way and then feeding it to animals that can barely move, to then feed some fat humans, who can also barely move.
    - paulcole 4y ago
      > That is clearly implied, isn't it? No.

hutzlibu 4y ago

Suffering is part of the world. I just try to minimize it, I do not believe it can be avoided. Do you believe differently in general?

paulcole 4y ago
I’ll agree that there’s no way to eliminate suffering. But you can continue to reduce your creation of suffering in animals by not eating meat. It’s fine if that’s a decision you’re not willing to make. But if you say, “I just try to minimize suffering” and then continue to eat meat, you should instead say, “I just try to minimize suffering that I can’t justify to myself.” Otherwise you’re lying to yourself because you’re doing one thing and saying another.
- hutzlibu 4y ago
  "I just try to minimize suffering that I can’t justify to myself" That is clearly implied, isn't it? There is almost no action, that does not directly or indirectly creates (potential) suffering. Normal agriculture creates a lot of suffering by poisoning the earth and the animals within. But even the most ecological agriculture creates suffering. First, by making a forest to a field. Wild animals and plants had to go away, so that the corn can grow. But yes, growing corn in an ecological way minimizes suffering by comparing it with growing corn in the most toxic way and then feeding it to animals that can barely move, to then feed some fat humans, who can also barely move.
  - paulcole 4y ago
    > That is clearly implied, isn't it? No.