Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

sw_faulty t1_j4e3gjm wrote

Reply to comment by sottedlayabout in Study: Feeding Goats Hemp Enhances the Health, Flavor Profile and Shelf-Stability of Their Meat by GivenAllTheFucksSry

So are plant foods

1

sottedlayabout t1_j4e5tyv wrote

They certainly aren’t as delicious as goats but if it helps you to feel morally superior then I’m glad you enjoy it.

6

shadar t1_j4e8mcm wrote

Causing harm for no reason but your own pleasure is the definition of immoral behavior.

1

Nothingtoseeheremmk t1_j4e9ye7 wrote

By that logic we should abandon our cities and go back to living in huts with nothing given how destructive modern society is to many organisms.

Or is pleasure only a problem when it comes to food?

0

shadar t1_j4edeqf wrote

Abandoning cities and returning to living in huts would obviously cause considerable harm combined with how impracticable it would be.

Not eating animals is very easy and also greatly reduces unnecessary suffering.

Also i love how suggesting to not stab innocent animals in the throat is somehow comparable to abandoning modern living. Touch some grass.

−5

Nothingtoseeheremmk t1_j4eese3 wrote

> Abandoning cities and returning to living in huts would obviously cause considerable harm combined with how impracticable it would be.

It would cause far less harm than the amount of damage wrought upon ecosystems every day by modern living. Your concern was over morality, not practicality.

> Not eating animals is very easy and also greatly reduces unnecessary suffering.

So do many societal pleasures, if not most. Are we giving those up too?

> Also i love how suggesting to not stab innocent animals in the throat is somehow comparable to abandoning modern living. Touch some grass.

You claimed it was immoral to cause harm for your own pleasure. Humans cause tremendous harm every day in pursuit of their various pleasures. Don’t make a blanket statement if you can’t defend it.

1

shadar t1_j4efrv0 wrote

Uh no it would cause millions if not billions of people to die from exposure and hunger.

If you're getting pleasure from some activity that requires stabbing someone else in the throat then yes, obviously, you should also stop.

Yes, it is immoral to cause unnecessary intentional and easily avoidable harm. This should be obvious.

−3

Nothingtoseeheremmk t1_j4ehcef wrote

> Uh no it would cause millions if not billions of people to die from exposure and hunger.

And it would save trillions of innocent organisms.

> If you're getting pleasure from some activity that requires stabbing someone else in the throat then yes, obviously, you should also stop.

You understand in order to provide the real estate, electricity, infrastructure, etc needed for modern society kills far far more organisms than we consume for food right?

Every watt of electricity you consume contributes to innocent suffering in someway. It should be easy to give up most entertainment then. No one needs television, video games, etc to survive.

> Yes, it is immoral to cause unnecessary intentional and easily avoidable harm. This should be obvious.

Ok I’m glad you’re onboard with giving up most societal luxuries.

4

beatmaster808 t1_j4eiv3m wrote

This response is key.

We are a virus, therefore eradicating us is OK

How's that for an ethical argument?

When it comes down to it, both ethics and morals are just made up by humans anyway... and broken every day by just about everyone

And if you (anyone) think you're superior, morally or otherwise, because you don't eat meat... then you need to educate yourself further.

4

shadar t1_j4emdt2 wrote

Can you understand the difference between causing incidental harm by existing in modern society, and stabbing someone in the throat for taste pleasure?

1

Nothingtoseeheremmk t1_j4en63m wrote

How is that any different than consuming unnecessary resources that contribute to suffering?

Why is eating an animal worse than playing a video game that causes the death of an animal or another organism? Neither is necessary for survival.

5

shadar t1_j4enr8p wrote

Because you don't have to stab an animal to play a video game? At this point I don't think you're taking this seriously. And if you are ... if you had to stab an animal to play a video game then you shouldn't play that game.

3

IEatSilberCrayons t1_j4f7ytj wrote

You're missing his point.

The generation of that energy causes death. Birds killed by windmills. Habitat destruction to extract lithium, cobalt, oil, gas, coal, manganese, etc. Pollution to process that raw material into usable fuels or equipment to generate and distribute that energy. Massive amounts of destruction and death for the animals in that wake.

Notice, even so called green sources are in this category.

That's not to mention the toxic pollution generated to make the semiconductors in that video game, not the toxins that will leach out if and when it is improperly disposed of.

1

shadar t1_j4fq0l7 wrote

Again. Causing incidental harm by existing in modern society is unavoidable. Just because birds might die to a windmill doesn't mean using electricity is equivalent to choosing to breed, raise and slaughter birds for taste pleasure.

You're arguing that because toxins might leak from some computer component, you may as well stab puppies in the neck for the yum yums.

Around 80 billion animals are murdered every year, participation of which is perfectly avoidable by not buying their dead bodies. That's not even counting the billions more killed from habitat loss. Animal agriculture is by far the largest driver of species extinction. 80% of Amazon deforestation is from cattle farming. That's true "Massive amounts of destruction and death for the animals in that wake".

"While it is true that some birds die every year by flying into turbine towers or blades, the actual numbers are negligible." https://us.orsted.com/renewable-energy-solutions/offshore-wind/seven-facts-about-offshore-wind/birds

Also, I don't see why we can't work to reduce such incidental harms where we are able.

1

corpjuk t1_j4i5y53 wrote

How do you think the goat feels getting it’s head cut off?

0

sottedlayabout t1_j4iiwmc wrote

Less pain than if it was being eaten alive by a pack of wolves. Nature is a harsh mistress and nobody makes it out of here alive.

1

corpjuk t1_j4imjux wrote

"goat should be butchering ready at about 8-10 months of age"

Do you think goats in the wild cannot survive longer than that?

0

sottedlayabout t1_j4je7x4 wrote

Do you think they all make it that long in the wild?

Nature isn’t this magical place where all the animals frolic happily through green fields and die of old age.

1

corpjuk t1_j4jibpv wrote

Actually yes.

“Kids are weaned after 6 months. Female goats reach sexual maturity at 1½–2½ years, males at 3½–4 years. The lifespan of a goat can be from 12 to 22 years.”

Animals do survive and have populations. We need to rewild the Earth.

1

Trim_Tram t1_j4e98bn wrote

I'm not a vegetarian, but it's kinda hard to argue they aren't morally superior

−3

sottedlayabout t1_j4e9r7z wrote

Yes, because there’s no human or animal suffering associated with commercial vegetable farming.

−1

Trim_Tram t1_j4e9udn wrote

Who said there wasn't?

4

sottedlayabout t1_j4eajc7 wrote

If there’s human and animal suffering in vegetable farming it makes your argument that eating vegetables is morally superior appear pretty superficial, if not completely detached from the reality of food production.

4

KeepAwaySynonym t1_j4ejnpj wrote

While I don't agree with people who have a chip on their shoulder and feeingl morally superior(while simultaneously admiring them for having principles they stand by and a passion they believe in)... you know that the level of deaths brought on by combines is smaller than the harm of caused by the food industry.

From needless animal suffering, to the environmental impacts, such as the Amazon rainforest being burned down for cattle ranching, there are tons of problems that come from using animals as a food source, especially in a modern society

8

sottedlayabout t1_j4eytpw wrote

You do know they are burning the Amazon to create arable farmland to feed their families right?

How about the fact that significantly more arable farmland will be required if we want everyone to make the “morally correct” choice to switch to a plant based diet than if we continue using animals as a food source.

0

Allegedly_Smart t1_j4funil wrote

>You do know they are burning the Amazon to create arable farmland to feed their families right?

Beef is an expensive commodity, and grass-fed beef is especially so. In our globalized food production network, beef raised in one place can be sold anywhere around world. The best places to raise cattle for grass-fed beef have high rainfall for faster grass growth; you can have more cattle on the same amount of land and/or can supplement their diets with less grain.

The Amazon is not being burned to make room for family farms so the people can grow food to eat; it's being burned to make way for cattle ranches, because it's a highly profitable use for that land by the capitalist class of Brazil. Brazil is the largest exporter of beef in the world.

5

sottedlayabout t1_j4ik1u4 wrote

So what’s your solution? Given that beef is one of Brazil’s biggest exports and the money that is generated by this production and exportation improves the lives of countless Brazilian people. Should they simply suffer and die in poverty? Morality is simple when you don’t have to actually suffer the consequences firsthand. When you can simply sit on your high horse and say “meat bad” when you drive to your local market and enjoy the privilege of being able to purchase any number of globally sourced out of season fruits and vegetables with no thought to the suffering involved in their production.

1

tornpentacle t1_j4fohn6 wrote

That...is just not remotely true

(The second part)

That's a ridiculous argument to make in the 21st century

2

sottedlayabout t1_j4ii005 wrote

And yet you seem wholly unable to actually rebut the argument.

1

shadar t1_j4edw5r wrote

Arguing that eating plants causes comparable deaths or suffering to eating animals demonstrates how detached you are from the reality of 'food' production.

It's not comparable. One choice minimizes suffering, the other maximizes harm.

7

sottedlayabout t1_j4ey4fr wrote

In your opinion

There will always be suffering. Raising animals for meat, milk and cheese doesn’t automatically equate to animal suffering or cruelty. Just as farming and plant based diets are not inherently ethical. There is a great deal of human and animal suffering and cruelty inherent in the labor required for large scale food production and distribution. Your privileged esthetic choice to eat plants is not in any way morally superior to the alternative, despite your assertion to the contrary.

5

shadar t1_j4f27v4 wrote

Killing animals for taste pleasure is morally equal to not killing animals for taste pleasure.

It is a privilege to not eat dead bodies for taste pleasure.

Suffering will always exist so it's okay to kill animals for taste pleasure.

Farming potatoes isn't inherently ethical so its morally equal to stabbing baby goats in the throat because their dead bodies taste nice..

That's a fantastic set of arguments you've collected. In my opinion.

1

corpjuk t1_j4i5vmd wrote

I love eating plants, let’s end animal abuse

3