4 ms·
By this logic, human travel should also be banned. It's bad for disease risk, the environment, etc. It's not that people believe meat has no downsides, it's th
by PostOnce 2y ago
By this logic, human travel should also be banned. It's bad for disease risk, the environment, etc.
It's not that people believe meat has no downsides, it's that we believe the positives outweigh the negatives.
We enjoy meat.
- colordrops 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- schmidt_fifty 2y agoSurely there is some middle ground between "we should ban this behavior entirely the second this comment is read" and "we should never acknowledge or discuss or take responsibility for the inevitable harm that this behavior causes"
- Tutafrankjonas 2y agoPerhaps the middle ground could be the health certificates or vaccine passports? More mRNA concoctions with a side dish of myocarditis or pericarditis? What do you prefer?
- undersuit 2y agoNot banned, replaced. We're still going to eat food after we give up meat, and we're still going to travel after we give up primarily fossil fuel driven travel.
- freshpretzels 2y agoThank you, kind overlord, for replacing the bad things with good things! Please monitor our behavior and communications to ensure all lives are compliant!!!
- rockemsockem 2y agoWe're not giving up meat. And even after lab grown meat becomes the norm there will still be cows raised for food to satisfy high end markets.
- undersuit 2y agoSounds like you agree with me that we're giving up meat. We gave up horse travel and there are still horses and occasional horse travel to satisfy high end markets.
- rockemsockem 2y agoI'm counting lab grown meat as meat here. I'll still be eating chicken, beef, etc, it just won't have come from a living animal. My point is that the world is not going to switch to plant or insect protein.
- freshpretzels 2y ago> By this logic, human travel should also be banned. It's bad for disease risk, the environment, etc. Shhh you’re giving the hall monitors ideas.
- infamouscow 2y ago[flagged]
- tomrod 2y agoI agree that grandparent commenter's point isn't responsible to reality, but this response is childish. We shouldn't advocate for others harms even if sarcastic.
- infamouscow 2y agoDo not mistaken derision for immaturity.
- AlexeyBelov 2y agoEither way that comment doesn't belong on this website.
- infamouscow 2y agoMy comment was an appropriate use of derision given the extremist nature of the original argument. Advocating for the elimination of humanity is a dangerous fringe view that contradicts fundamental moral values. Treating it with intellectual seriousness would legitimize an abhorrent position. Suggesting OP volunteer to go first, I exposed the glaring ethical contradiction in their argument. If they truly believe in eliminating humanity, logically they should be willing to start with themselves. In extreme cases involving manifestly unethical ideas, derision is justified to decisively reject the premise, highlight its incoherence, and affirm community values. Engaging respectfully would be counterproductive by dignifying an view that deserves no respect.
- CatWChainsaw 2y agoMeat is more necessary to livelihood than schmoozy business trips to Singapore or a shallow influencer's five-star trip to Tahiti.