Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

EvangelineOfSky t1_j9takh3 wrote

While I do get the point you are trying to make, we do have laws on how the animals need to be treated up until that point, and to handle the process humanely so the animals don't have to suffer unnecessary levels of cruelty

How often those laws are enforced is another question entirely, as with a lot of regulations, but they exist in theory

89

ujythrsgfdd t1_j9tayl7 wrote

Great, I'm sure the animals that get treated like that are very happy that they have legal rights.

−21

Mundane-Ad-3142 t1_j9wv292 wrote

We require food on a mass scale to feed our population. We must slaughter animals. Now, we can either do that with as little pain as possible or we can inflict untold levels of pain on billions of animals every year. What do you think we should do?

0

ujythrsgfdd t1_j9xer56 wrote

Oh no please, if there's laws, I'm sure they're always followed in these industrial torture palaces. It's no like capitalism demands that the cattle is processed as if they're little more than dirt.

6

masnosreme t1_j9tw446 wrote

I'd say killing a living, feeling creature for no other reason than you like the way it tastes is de facto unnecessary levels of cruelty.

−25

mces97 t1_j9v2k3q wrote

Wait until you find out there's no such thing as a vegan. Do you know how many rodents and larger herbivores get killed protecting crops?

9

melocoman1999 t1_j9vfmu1 wrote

Yeah that’s not what a vegan is lmao

5

mces97 t1_j9vnc6m wrote

A vegan is someone who doesn't eat anything that comes from an animal. They eat a plant, nut, no animal diet. But, pretending that them not eating meat harms no animals is missing a crucial point. Animals do get killed to make sure those crops grow.

3

takes3todango t1_ja02jbn wrote

That's also not what vegan is but feel free to build yet another strawman. Looking up a definition isn't that hard.

"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."

2

Aldervale t1_j9typxp wrote

Plant or animal, it is fundamentally immoral that we have to end life to sustain life. Is the level of that immorality set by how closely a living thing is to human? Perhaps, but that does appear a bit of an arbitrary metric to judge by.

−24

masnosreme t1_j9u51cd wrote

Plants don't feel pain and are incapable of suffering by any metric currently known. Animals do feel pain and are capable of monumental suffering.

Your argument is bad and disingenuous.

18

Orangeb0lt t1_j9vs1zu wrote

Idk man, many plants react to touch, light, and temperature sensations, who's to say they don't also react with their own form of pain. No scientific study has yet proven one way or another with plants and pain.

1

NeedlessPedantics t1_j9x63g3 wrote

Plants have no central nervous system. Stalagmites react to touch, light, and temperature… they must feel pain right?

Is Reddit getting dumber by the day?

3

Billis- t1_j9vzceo wrote

Uhhhhh so what's your suggestion?

Kool-aid?

0