4 ms·
>> just for the joy of eating something that tastes nice That is an example of assuming the worst about someone else with whom you disagree. Taste is not a mi
by starkd 4y ago
>> just for the joy of eating something that tastes nice
That is an example of assuming the worst about someone else with whom you disagree. Taste is not a minor factor. It is a major part of life. Life rituals, commmunity are built around it. It gives life much of its diversity.
- 9dev 4y agoThe animals robbed of their life entirely for that major part of yours would like to have a word with you. It's not like meat is the only thing tasty or joyful in life.
- xdennis 4y agoFood is tasty and no amount of your religious preaching is going to change that.
- 9dev 4y agoNo, I know that. A steak is one of the most delicious things I've ever eaten, for sure. But I still have self control, I don't have do do anything that feels good. I just don't want something sentient to die for my dinner, that's all it is.
- mrguyorama 4y agoThen you do you. I am not convinced that an animal killed for food is morally wrong, and I will continue to eat some meat, in moderation, and enjoy when people in my family hunt and fish and eat the things they get. I don't think we have to treat animals as equals to people. That is all completely tangential to this atrocious law from an actually fascist government however. Banning animal-less meat is stupid, backwards, does nothing to protect the meat industry, and they shouldn't be artificially protected anyway. If animal-free meat companies can sell me a tasty steak for slightly cheaper then I will 100% purchase it and enjoy it, but I will likely still not be in favor of banning animal farming.
- 9dev 4y ago> and enjoy when people in my family hunt and fish and eat the things they get. There is a huge difference between going out and killing something yourself, and shredding millions of chiclets a day for chicken nuggets thrown away half eaten. But that's how the majority of people get their meat. I'm with you on the second paragraph, though.
- 3np 4y agoEqually arguable: Rape feels good and no amount of preaching is changing that. Has similarly been part of human culture for time immemorial. I still consider it desirable to reduce the amount of rape to 0, regardless of how important it might feel to rapists.
- PM_me_your_math 4y agoRape feels good for the victim? I was always under the impression that rape is a horrible, terrible, painful, and humiliating atrocity. I've never been a democrat, so maybe that's why I don't have a favorable view of rape and think is feels good for the victim.
- 3np 4y agoSo that's where you end up following that line of thought huh
- fennecfoxy 4y agoThis is incredibly counterintuitive as really what you mean is "rape feels good to a rapist". That's the important part. I feel like the majority of people, if held at gunpoint and forced to rape somebody, would not be comfortable, they would not enjoy it and it would be a scarring, traumatic experience.
- 9dev 4y agoWhat is counterintuitive in OPs statement if we're talking about eating meat? > Rape feels good and no amount of preaching is changing that. Has similarly been part of human culture for time immemorial. > [Meat] is tasty and no amount of your religious preaching is going to change that. There is no ambiguity here? A rapist doesn't regard the feelings of their victims. Someone who eats an animal doesn't regard the feelings of that animal. In both cases, it's clear who enjoys that situation and who suffers for it.