3 ms·

> being vegetarian doesn't exclude you from the necessity of killing in order to live. You're just killing forms of life that you emphasize with less, which is

by latexr 2y ago

> being vegetarian doesn't exclude you from the necessity of killing in order to live. You're just killing forms of life that you emphasize with less, which is very reasonable and rational but also not materially different. That’s like saying you kill chickens to eat eggs. You don’t kill a plant to eat its fruit. In fact, plants benefit from animals eating what they produce, be it oranges or tomatoes or something else and crapping the seeds somewhere else for proliferation.

wrigby 2y ago
Admittedly this is pedantry on my part, but isn’t this only true for fruits? GP’s argument seems perfectly valid for e.g. carrots or mushrooms.
- latexr 2y ago
  Mushrooms are “fruits”. The “plant” itself is the mycelium underground and the mushroom is the “fruity” part which is produced to spread the “seeds” (spores). And fruits are broader than most people think. Many of the things you think as vegetables are fruits: pumpkins, zucchinis, tomatoes. But even outside fruits there is food you can harvest without harming the plant, like potatoes. And we haven’t even gotten into seeds and grains, like rice. So you can definitely live without killing what you eat.
  - fragmede 2y ago
    aren't plants alive?
    - latexr 2y ago
      They are, and you don’t kill them or harm them to eat the things they produce with the purpose of being eaten and spread. If you want to engage in the conversation, please make an effort to do so in good faith and actually address the arguments. If you’re only going to make basic queries everyone already agrees with, we’re just wasting time and space.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - fragmede 2y ago
        > purpose of being eaten and spread why do you get to decide that it isn't the purpose of a cow to be eaten? You're arguing on the Internet, it's already a waste of time and space.
        latexr 2y ago
        > why do you get to decide that it isn't the purpose of a cow to be eaten? Clearly you’ve never experienced the sight of animals in a slaughterhouse, as they realise what is happening to the animals in front and begin to panic and violently bellow and push back. > You're arguing on the Internet, it's already a waste of time and space. That is only true for people who don’t engage in good faith and don’t have a genuine desire to learn and are open to changing their minds. For everyone else, it can and does provide value.
        fragmede 2y ago
        your attempt to evoke an emotion doesn't answer my question though. Why do you get to decide that the purpose of a cow isn't to be eaten?
        latexr 2y ago
        Why do you get to decide it is? The onus of proof is on the one making the claim. I guess someone could also repeatedly bash you over the head with a tire iron and break your legs, and when criticised reply “how do you know their purpose isn’t to get hurt?” “Well, when I approached them to hit them, they cowered in fear, asked for mercy, and tried to flee.” “Your attempt to evoke an emotion doesn’t answer the question though. How do you know their purpose is not to be ravaged?”
        fragmede 2y ago
        > They are, and you don’t kill them or harm them to eat the things they produce with the purpose of being eaten and spread. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43113489 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43113489
  - ThePowerOfFuet 2y ago
    > Mushrooms are “fruits”. The “plant” itself is the mycelium underground and the mushroom is the “fruity” part which is produced to spread the “seeds” (spores). They are the "fruiting body" of the fungus, but biologically they are not fruit.
    - latexr 2y ago
      That is correct, which is why I used quotes. It is important to not get bogged down in pedantry and lose sight of the argument, though. The matter being discussed is if you need to kill what you eat, and I’m using “fruit” as a shorthand for the thing a plant produces to be eaten but is not the plant itself.
  - wrigby 2y ago
    Hah of course you're 100% right on mushrooms - that totally slipped my mind. Am I completely out to lunch on root vegetables though?
6510 2y ago
I killed so many slugs eating my broccoli it started to get to me. I technically didn't kill them myself, I put the cannibals in a bucket together. 1/3 to 1/2 bucket per day. About 30 full buckets for 20 broccoli plants of which about 8 were ruined.
- latexr 2y ago
  The conversation is about the necessity of killing what you eat. Those slugs have nothing to do with either argument nor were they a necessary casualty.
  - amanaplanacanal 2y ago
    Not sure how killing things and then not eating them is morally superior. If you aren't eating meat you are probably getting most of your calories from grains and legumes. The people that grow and store those for you are killing a lot of animals to get them to your grocery store.
    - latexr 2y ago
      This response feels quite emotional, so I’ll start by saying there was no judgement in my comment. At no point have I made a comment on the morality of the matter. Furthermore, not only do grocery stores not even enter into the conversation, you are assuming to know what the people who grow and sell the food at my local markets eat. I assure you, you do not. I think you’ll benefit from this video. Don’t let yourself be consumed by emotions of an imaginary argument. The entirety of your point is a response to something you imagined I said and not my words or intentions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExEHuNrC8yU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExEHuNrC8yU
      - amanaplanacanal 2y ago
        I think you misunderstood me, perhaps I didn't express myself well. You said the slugs were not a necessary casualty. Growing the acres and acres of grain and pulses necessary for a vegan diet necessitates the killing of way more animals (insects and rodents, etc) than the few cows, chickens, or pigs necessary to feed a carnivore. Every kind of agriculture requires killing. There is no other way to do it at scale. The real problem is the sheer number of humans we have to feed. Hopefully another couple centuries of low birth rates will help.
AlexandrB 2y ago
The dark truth about keeping chickens and many other poultry is that they hatch in an approximately 1:1 male:female ratio, but can't be kept in that ratio without severe conflict and stress. Thus, hatching chickens to keep for egg-laying requires killing most of the male chicks. So yes, you have to kill chickens to eat eggs.
- veidr 2y ago
  The "severe conflict and stress" part may be hard to understand for the cityfolk; you have to kill chickens to eat eggs, or else they will do it.
- osullivj 2y ago
  Same for dairy cattle: males are redundant. My grandfather was an AI pioneer in the UK in the 1940s. AI being artificial insemination of dairy cattle....
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    I mean, dairy cattle also have the issue of keeping the female pregnant and then taking the baby anyway. And then, once they are done producing milk, what do you do with a giant animal? Same with chickens that lose the ability to produce eggs.
- thijson 2y ago
  We put the redundant roosters in the woods, let nature do the killing for us. They didn't last one night.
  - sethammons 2y ago
    Getting eaten alive makes you feel better than euthanizing them quickly?
    - 0x457 2y ago
      Well, at least a wild animal had something to eat? I'd say main benefit is not doing it youself.
burnished 2y ago
That is pretty much just fruit. Vegetables are typically either the whole body of the plant (like carrots) or a vital part.
- xolox 2y ago
  Fruit, seeds, grains, legumes, one can find quite a lot to eat without "killing" a plant. Admittedly though most (if not all) vegetables do involve killing a whole plant.

by latexr 2y ago

wrigby 2y ago

Admittedly this is pedantry on my part, but isn’t this only true for fruits? GP’s argument seems perfectly valid for e.g. carrots or mushrooms.

latexr 2y ago
Mushrooms are “fruits”. The “plant” itself is the mycelium underground and the mushroom is the “fruity” part which is produced to spread the “seeds” (spores). And fruits are broader than most people think. Many of the things you think as vegetables are fruits: pumpkins, zucchinis, tomatoes. But even outside fruits there is food you can harvest without harming the plant, like potatoes. And we haven’t even gotten into seeds and grains, like rice. So you can definitely live without killing what you eat.
- fragmede 2y ago
  aren't plants alive?
  - latexr 2y ago
    They are, and you don’t kill them or harm them to eat the things they produce with the purpose of being eaten and spread. If you want to engage in the conversation, please make an effort to do so in good faith and actually address the arguments. If you’re only going to make basic queries everyone already agrees with, we’re just wasting time and space.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - fragmede 2y ago
      > purpose of being eaten and spread why do you get to decide that it isn't the purpose of a cow to be eaten? You're arguing on the Internet, it's already a waste of time and space.
      - latexr 2y ago
        > why do you get to decide that it isn't the purpose of a cow to be eaten? Clearly you’ve never experienced the sight of animals in a slaughterhouse, as they realise what is happening to the animals in front and begin to panic and violently bellow and push back. > You're arguing on the Internet, it's already a waste of time and space. That is only true for people who don’t engage in good faith and don’t have a genuine desire to learn and are open to changing their minds. For everyone else, it can and does provide value.
        fragmede 2y ago
        your attempt to evoke an emotion doesn't answer my question though. Why do you get to decide that the purpose of a cow isn't to be eaten?
        latexr 2y ago
        Why do you get to decide it is? The onus of proof is on the one making the claim. I guess someone could also repeatedly bash you over the head with a tire iron and break your legs, and when criticised reply “how do you know their purpose isn’t to get hurt?” “Well, when I approached them to hit them, they cowered in fear, asked for mercy, and tried to flee.” “Your attempt to evoke an emotion doesn’t answer the question though. How do you know their purpose is not to be ravaged?”
        fragmede 2y ago
        > They are, and you don’t kill them or harm them to eat the things they produce with the purpose of being eaten and spread. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43113489 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43113489
- ThePowerOfFuet 2y ago
  > Mushrooms are “fruits”. The “plant” itself is the mycelium underground and the mushroom is the “fruity” part which is produced to spread the “seeds” (spores). They are the "fruiting body" of the fungus, but biologically they are not fruit.
  - latexr 2y ago
    That is correct, which is why I used quotes. It is important to not get bogged down in pedantry and lose sight of the argument, though. The matter being discussed is if you need to kill what you eat, and I’m using “fruit” as a shorthand for the thing a plant produces to be eaten but is not the plant itself.
- wrigby 2y ago
  Hah of course you're 100% right on mushrooms - that totally slipped my mind. Am I completely out to lunch on root vegetables though?

6510 2y ago

I killed so many slugs eating my broccoli it started to get to me. I technically didn't kill them myself, I put the cannibals in a bucket together. 1/3 to 1/2 bucket per day. About 30 full buckets for 20 broccoli plants of which about 8 were ruined.

latexr 2y ago
The conversation is about the necessity of killing what you eat. Those slugs have nothing to do with either argument nor were they a necessary casualty.
- amanaplanacanal 2y ago
  Not sure how killing things and then not eating them is morally superior. If you aren't eating meat you are probably getting most of your calories from grains and legumes. The people that grow and store those for you are killing a lot of animals to get them to your grocery store.
  - latexr 2y ago
    This response feels quite emotional, so I’ll start by saying there was no judgement in my comment. At no point have I made a comment on the morality of the matter. Furthermore, not only do grocery stores not even enter into the conversation, you are assuming to know what the people who grow and sell the food at my local markets eat. I assure you, you do not. I think you’ll benefit from this video. Don’t let yourself be consumed by emotions of an imaginary argument. The entirety of your point is a response to something you imagined I said and not my words or intentions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExEHuNrC8yU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExEHuNrC8yU
    - amanaplanacanal 2y ago
      I think you misunderstood me, perhaps I didn't express myself well. You said the slugs were not a necessary casualty. Growing the acres and acres of grain and pulses necessary for a vegan diet necessitates the killing of way more animals (insects and rodents, etc) than the few cows, chickens, or pigs necessary to feed a carnivore. Every kind of agriculture requires killing. There is no other way to do it at scale. The real problem is the sheer number of humans we have to feed. Hopefully another couple centuries of low birth rates will help.

AlexandrB 2y ago

The dark truth about keeping chickens and many other poultry is that they hatch in an approximately 1:1 male:female ratio, but can't be kept in that ratio without severe conflict and stress. Thus, hatching chickens to keep for egg-laying requires killing most of the male chicks. So yes, you have to kill chickens to eat eggs.

veidr 2y ago
The "severe conflict and stress" part may be hard to understand for the cityfolk; you have to kill chickens to eat eggs, or else they will do it.
osullivj 2y ago
Same for dairy cattle: males are redundant. My grandfather was an AI pioneer in the UK in the 1940s. AI being artificial insemination of dairy cattle....
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  I mean, dairy cattle also have the issue of keeping the female pregnant and then taking the baby anyway. And then, once they are done producing milk, what do you do with a giant animal? Same with chickens that lose the ability to produce eggs.
thijson 2y ago
We put the redundant roosters in the woods, let nature do the killing for us. They didn't last one night.
- sethammons 2y ago
  Getting eaten alive makes you feel better than euthanizing them quickly?
  - 0x457 2y ago
    Well, at least a wild animal had something to eat? I'd say main benefit is not doing it youself.

burnished 2y ago

That is pretty much just fruit. Vegetables are typically either the whole body of the plant (like carrots) or a vital part.

xolox 2y ago
Fruit, seeds, grains, legumes, one can find quite a lot to eat without "killing" a plant. Admittedly though most (if not all) vegetables do involve killing a whole plant.