Really ridiculous how vegans think this will put off any meat eaters from eating meat.
Actually it’s having the opposite effect, it just infuriates people and makes them hungry.
I myself am hungry for a chicken now!
“Bloodmouth carnist food?” What an idiot.
Digging into the morality of mundane things, and their counterpoints.
What can you do. We wi transcend it some day.
Until then, I’m not dying for a fish
We can transcend it today. The only thing stopping you is yourself.
Tell this idiot to read and look up the chemicals in his “vegan” food…
Last time I checked, beans, peas and lentils aren’t filled with growth hormones and puss.
No, I agree, beans, peas, and lentils are (mostly) clean. An I have no issues with people getting their proteins from those. Anyone cooking from fresh basic ingredients has my full support.
But look at any commercial food, and you’ll quickly notice that for vegan/vegetarian variants, the ingredient list sounds more like a sales pitch from a chemical company. Look at cakes, sweets, chocolates as a prime example for chemical horror cabinets. And the so-called “meat replacement products” are the worst.
And, by the way, meat here is not filled with growth hormones and puss. We don’t import American “meat” here.
Companies have to speak a common language with the regulators who test the product, they can’t simply write “hand-rolled flaxen seed with almond dough” so they write up the common chemical ingredients found via testing.
E numbers are assigned to common additives (e.g. E1105 is an egg white enzyme used as a preservative, E1400 (Dextrin) is a starch thickener abundant in corn)) to allow for a standardized vocabulary so that the regulators can actually test for safe levels of these common additives.
Not sure what you are counting as “commercial” food, sounds like the sort of ultra processed stuff that is bad for you regardless of being vegan or not.
A microwave burger isn’t good for you.
I am not even a vegan but it should be fucking obvious. If you are eating KFC you have no right to complain about “the chemicals” in the food someone else eats.
Vegan food usually contains loads of dihydrogen monoxide and everyone that consumes it will die.
Vegan food usually contains loads of dihydrogen monoxide and everyone that consumes it will die.
Wow, this sounds serious. Someone should ban vegan food.
Everywhere is contaminated with it nowadays, you can’t escape it. I hear there is even loads of it in our water supply!
I think it’s totally natural for humans to eat meat. But also definitely more moral to abstain from eating it.
The process of eating meat? Sure.
The way people in the modern world obtain meat? Nothing natural about that.If I was made to hunt my game, or kill the animal I raised, I’d never eat meat.
I would. If I eat meat I am responsible for taking that animals life, whether or not it’s me that performs the killing blow. At least I know if I do it, it will be as quick and painless as I am able to make it. In the case of hunting, I would take some comfort in knowing it lived free and not in a cramped cage in a factory farm or something. If I was able to raise my own animals, I would give them the best and happiest life I was able to give them, and also end their life as painlessly as I could manage when it was time for that.
I wouldn’t at all enjoy the act of killing, but I feel like it shows at least a little respect for the life of the animal that I am willing to take the responsibility to do it myself, precisely because it is a hard thing to do. I would never have eaten meat if I wasn’t wiling to do the killing myself.
I recently switched to a Pescetarian diet, partly so I can stop supporting factory style farming. I know it’s an anthropocentric pov but Its easier for me to kill fish and other sea creatures than land critters, but I still try to be as humane as possible when doing it.
I will never eat anything in the Dolphin, Whale, or Octopus families, which is another anthropocentric thing, and I guess it made me a hypocrite because I did eat pork and they are intelligent too. I am trying to reduce the harm I do at least.
It’s also totally natural for humans to put those that we consider inferior into horrible death camps after all.
That is hardly the natural way of getting meat
Seeing what some vegetarians and vegans eat instead of meat makes me laugh. One half is exotic stuff flown in from the other side of the world at a vast expense of the environment, the other half is Ultra High Processed Food laced with chemicals most people cannot even pronounce…
If you aren’t raising cows in your backyard, I have bad news for you…
If the situation were reversed, chickens would eat us without a second thought.
Good people of Cyrodiil. Welcome to the arena…
Because the chicken is incapable of acting morally. Humans should hold themselves to a higher standard.
I’ve seen a rooster eat a chick before, it was horrifying.
Congrats, you have the morality of a chicken?
Sorry best we can do is horrors beyond your comprehension. As is human tradition.
Just because we CAN do something, doesn’t mean we should. We are supposed to be superior to animals (at least according to some humans). Why are we doing what the animals do if we’re superior? Animals also rape each other and commit infanticide. Why aren’t we doing that too?
Because we’re only animals!
“Bloodmouth” is one of my trigger words. As soon as I hear it I know the speaker is a complete fucking moron and stop listening. From that point on all I hear is mwah mwah mwah like Charlie Brown’s teacher. Feckless background noise.
I guess I’m lucky that this is the first time I’ve ever heard the term, but as of the moment- I think it’s fucking hilarious!
Not so much the word itself, but that there are actual clowns out there that say this without even a trace of humor. It’s the duality of it all.
A ridiculous person, playing at total seriousness, while saying a monumentally ridiculous thing.
That’s a standing ovation level of dipshittery.
Hold on, hold on, hold on. Did you call me a bloodmouth? BLOODMOUTH?!?!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
You fucking clown!
Although I have to say “bloodmouth’s graveyard stomach” hits SUPER hard
It does.
I’m so sorry but this is now one of my favorite new words
If they think bloodmouth is an insult they should see harvest day on my chicken farm.
It is up there with the time I heard someone call my straight male friend a “Pussy Fucker” to their face.
FUCKING GUILTY!
Bloodmouth Graveyard….
This needs to be a band, an album, a movie or a TV show!
I am perfectly fine with the knowledge that my stomach is a graveyard.
At most, my stomach is a funeral home.
If you eat meat and it remains permanently in your body, please seek medical attention.
It gets recycled into energy and nutrients, just like the worms recycle bodies buried in earth. So graveyard works.
As someone who tries to eat less meat in general because climate change and cows are basically giant grass eating slightly smellier dogs, I cannot take anyone who unironically uses “carnist” and “bloodmouth” seriously from that point on.
The more names you use to describe “person who eats meat” that you think are insulting and derogatory, the more people roll their eyes and move on with their planned meal.
Also when they add extraneous hyperbole to invalidate themselves.
No, there’s nothing sweet or savory about rotting meat, but it isn’t rotting, now is it?People that eat meat do not eat rotting carcasses (RFK aside) the same way vegans don’t eat rotten vegetables.
sweet
Ummmm, rotting meat can be “sweet” due to decay as in “the sweet smell of rotting meat”. Don’t think that you should eat it when its that off, but yeah I don’t get how rotting is an insult here.
Extremism definitely pushes reasonable people away from any group.
Humans are generalizers at our core. We will assume everyone in a group is like the worst member of a group and move on without a conscious thought on the matter.
So the extremism of the meat industry is pushing people away from eating meat?
I’m still waiting to see this play out.
Yeah I’m basically in the same boat. I call myself a half assed vegetarian - I don’t typically buy meat for myself but if I go somewhere and meat’s already been ordered I won’t make a big fuss. I think meat is bad for the environment and cruel to the animals, and want people to care more about that, but it’s an emotional issue that needs to be handled as such.
It is annoying that some people are so emotionally invested in meat that it’s a hot button triggering topic, but that’s how it is.
Some left wing people will call the USA like “burgerland” or “ameriKKKa” and I’m just like that’s not going to win any converts. People who aren’t already firmly in your camp are going to stop listening.
if you’re very passionate about something it’s easy to use strong words, and i think while it’s annoying to me it’s generally acceptable if used like this. I can’t personally develop any strong feelings about vegetarianism or veganism, but I’ve had my passionate political moments in my life (and still do sometimes) and I guess it’s kind of respect worthy, at least when I myself can see the logic of the argument or even agree to an extent.
Used to be I would get pretty frenzied when confronted with what I could fathom about capitalism, so I can empathize.
“Bloodmouth” is clearly trying to be a slur (although it’s the first time I see the term). “Carnist” however is just a neologism with meaning “someone who eats meat as part of their alimentation”.
Words exist to convey meaning, that’s all. Now vegans or vegetarians can be aggressive towards carnists, that’s for sure. Nothing to do with vocabulary.
Ugh I hate this attitude. People that say “words are just words” have never had a slur yelled inches from their face.
If words are just words, then what is hate speech?
I don’t deny the existence of slurs or hate speech (like “bloodmouth”). In this particular case, “carnist” is an academic word used in scientific papers in a sociological context.
Like I said in the other thread, it’s describing the opposite of vegetarianism and veganism. “Omnivorous” was proposed as an alternative, but it’s initially understood as “digesting plant and animal matter” in zoology, which would technically include vegetarians.
There is a need for a name that excludes vegans and vegetarians to describe reality.
Sorry for the Godwin point, but fascism is also an academic word used to describe a real political movement and fascists hate being called fascists. I’m myself eating meat so I don’t want to draw parallels here.
Vocabulary has a lot to do with it, no one wants to be called a slur and they use carnist as a slur
Then what word would you like people to use for “person eating meat as part of their alimentation”? I ask in good faith, I’m really curious to know your opinion.
I don’t think that “meat-eater” is necessarily better than “carnist” 😕 Or a negative like “non-vegeterian”? A bit of a mouthful.
Omnivore is pretty neutral
Alright, that’s pretty good. I wanna nitpick by saying that vegetarians are also omnivorous because omnivorous is digesting “plant and animal matter”, but I don’t know if it would be in good faith :p Thanks for the discussion.
deleted by creator
“Carnist” however is just a neologism with meaning “someone who eats meat as part of their alimentation”.
that is not what it means
Okay I had a look and, you’re right. Apparently it’s an academic word in sociology meaning “prevailing ideology in which people support the use and consumption of animal products, especially meat.” So it’s not the practice, it’s the way of thinking.
Carnist is just the word for people who eat meat, it’s not vegans’ fault you decided it’s an insult. Suggest a non insulting word.
It’s a term vegans developed and marketed to label their out group.
Whenever anyone labels an out group, they are doing so to feel superior. Considering people already felt vegans have an heir of superiority, the term acts to reinforce this notion.
Vegans that use the term are not smart people. They are displaying an inability to apply logic and reasoning to move their cause forward. Indicating they did not use logic and reasoning to make their decision but rather emotions. Emotions which they then attempt to deploy in an effort to manipulate others. They do not understand that not everyone is as easily emotionally manipulated.
They will of course backfill their choice with dogma from the movement. But they do not lead with that dogma because it is not how they became one.
Why didn’t carnists come up with their own term for themselves? Vegans made up a name for themselves. If carnists come up with a term for carnists and market it, vegans will probably use it.
Omnivore?
That’s a scientific term, not a lifestyle choice
Wait, you’re the troll who insists being called drag is the same as someone trans wanting to be called s/he, aren’t you?
Yep. The one and the same. It’s unbelievable that they’re still around with the same username. The admins of their instance just don’t give a shit.
I don’t know the other user, but this is irrelevant to this conversation.
Omnivore is biological designation of the type of foods that our bodies are biologically equipped to handle. Note that “capable of eating/digesting meat” does not mean must eat meat. Animals in that category would be “obligate carnivores.”
“Meateater” is probably the more common term for someone who makes the lifestyle choice to consume animal products. But “carnist” is intended to encompass non-food uses (e.g. wearing leather). While it may be used as a pejorative by the vegan community, any term is likely to be used that way (including omnivore or meateater) when describing a group that one views with contempt.
But veganism can use leather and eat meat in the appropriate circumstances come to think of it.
Edit: just to be clear, this was something I was told by other Vegans, including in person. Roadkill or an existing carcass of an animal that dies naturally for example are fine.
No, drag’s not a troll, just an ordinary trans person with unusual pronouns. If anyone here is outraged about trans people literally just minding their own business, it isn’t drag. It would have to be someone who brought up neopronouns just to complain about them.
Everyone knows you’re a troll. The whole “drag” bit is just the “I identify as an attack helicopter” but just subtle enough so as to make it easy to pretend it’s real.
It’s absolutely amazing you’ve been able to keep this going for so long.
Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neopronoun
Ahhh, you are that person that misrepresents trans people and makes them look bad on purpose! You just forgot your schtick for a moment. Nevermind then, your opinion is meaningless.
Yea man, finding out that Drag is a vegan surprised no one. It’s just another moral high ground to argue with Internet strangers from to feel better about what I imagine is a very uninteresting life.
God forbid trans people talk about something other than being trans
(Well Carnivore would be meat only, Omivore is everything, Herbivore is veg only. But yeah.)
Yeah, but vegans also don’t use animal products as well (and sometimes products that may hurt animals secondarily) so it’s a descriptor for not just diet but lifestyle. And vegetarianism allows for animal byproducts but not meat, so also not omnivorous I think?
Drag:
Carnist is just the word for people who eat meat, it’s not vegans’ fault you decided it’s an insult. Suggest a non insulting word.
You:
Omnivore
Me:
(Well Carnivore would be meat only, Omivore is everything, Herbivore is veg only. But yeah.)
Were we not having a discussion on the correct word for meat eater, which would be carnivore? I’m confused
Nonetheless, -vore as a root word means devour, carni- means flesh/meat, omni- means all, and herb- means, well, herbs. These words all only describe the animal by their diet, not also their sociological choices.
wrong in every way possible
That’s not even what carnist means…
Sounds like the anti-woke sentiment of being more racist in spite, because some doesn’t like being called out for their behaviour.
Would you prefer the rational argument, that the meat industry fuels climate change and speeds up the destruction of our planet?
… they literally raised that point.
Oh wow, I am dumb. 😂
Yea reminds me of people who think it’s an epic own to say they’ll eat two steaks instead when talking to vegans. Congrats on worsening your health I guess (among other things)
My reflexive response is “no you won’t.” If they wanted 2 steaks, they were going to do so regardless.
If people were so easily manipulated, then I would start leaning heavily into reverse psychology.
Dissolve in the acids inside of meee*
Drenched in your children Rolled in your food
it amazes me how kind, sweet people will suddenly go “actually I fucking love killing” as soon as you suggest the meat industry might be kinda bad
Well, the meat industry is objectively bad, but it’s not like it’s just killing for fun
I almost feel like stuffing the corpses down your gullet is worse than if it was just for fun
this post is trying to make it sound fun
I didn’t perceive it that way, it’s not the “killing” that is fun, but rather the response that was
It will get worse. Veganism will continue to gain popularity, especially among young people. This is because, at heart, most people are empathetic toward others and weaker beings. The question of veganism boils down to a simple question: whether or not one prefers personal enjoyment to the suffering of animals. And I am sure that this question will increasingly be answered with a “no.” Animal suffering will then become an increasingly important political issue. As a result, a lot of people who today consider themselves progressive, open-minded, and generally good people will change political sides. They will join those who already convince people on other issues (poverty, deportation, LGBTQ, etc.) that cruelty and suffering are simply part of reality and that they therefore don’t need to feel bad about it.
I’m really hoping you’re right but as a recent convert, I feel this might just be hopium. I’m fairly young and even amongst very leftie or activist circles I engage with veganism is still niche
Mm I mean I agree just not fully, I think most people just don’t make the full connection. For most people it’s like saying to stop using your right hand, it’s causing mass suffering. The initial reaction is to say that’s just ridiculous. It’s just so normalized and ingrained, and meals are very important for a lot of people. It’s that lack of connection between what you do and the actual effects, and also just people not wanting to know (a friend i know has an idea it’s bad but specifically tries to avoid learning anything about it). So not necessarily they don’t have empathy, it’s just willingly or unknowingly not making the connection between their actions and the actual animal.
Imagine being so full of snobbish “moral superiority” that you deem animal rights a more important and immediate matter over the many problems that affect humans that haven’t been solved yet.
Where do you read that I say “animal rights are a more important and immediate matter than the many problems that affect humans”? That sounds like a straw man.
But what you are doing here is a classic pattern of argumentation that is used time and again to prevent or reverse social progress. For example, this is how the abolition of USAID was justified. It was said that Americans had to be helped first before foreigners could be helped. From the MAGAs’ point of view, the decisive quality characteristic is not being human, but being American. Suffering for anyone who is not American is therefore legitimate. This othering is justified by the argument that one must first help one’s own kind, and that this is normal, natural even. And one’s own kind is then defined as Americans, rather than all humans, which would also be possible. The same thing happens in my country whenever it comes to humanitarian aid or refugees.
That’s why I’m going to say the same thing to you that I always say to these guys: Nothing in the world prevents us from addressing and criticizing all injustices at the same time.
Since you’re on Lemmy, it’s likely that you don’t agree with this reasoning above. But structurally, it’s exactly the same as what we do to animals, isn’t it? We tolerate avoidable suffering in other living beings because we only consider humans to be our own kind. But our own kind could also be living beings in general. But they are simply ‘the others’.
For vegans, it is simply not convincing to make this harsh distinction. At least not when it comes to something as fundamental as avoidable suffering. And the suffering is avoidable. We don’t have to cause it. So we could refrain from doing so. That’s the whole argument.
Nothing in the world prevents us from addressing and criticizing all injustices at the same time.
every minute spent on animal rights is a minute not spent helping people
This reasoning reminds me of “effective altruism.” If you do a cost/benefit analysis, it makes much more sense to buy mosquito nets to combat malaria than to improve the lives of homeless people in industrialized countries. Proponents even say that it would be immoral to improve conditions here in the West because it means using resources in a much less effective way than could be possible. No wonder this way of thinking is so popular in Silicon Valley, as it gives people a good, even moral excuse not to have to deal with the problems here.
But I can reassure you: like almost every social problem, this one is linked to all sorts of others. A very obvious link between animal liberation and human problems are ecological and climatic issues, which affect all living beings on the planet, including humans. And without the exploitation of the Global South, meat consumption in Western societies would not be possible at all. So, those who help non-human animals also help humans.
Judging by your name, you are a Marxist like me. Then you must realize that wage earners have something in common with non-human animals in that they are exploited, dominated, and suffer at the hands of the ruling class. Of course, the function of workers and animals in the production process of capital differs qualitatively, and the role they each play in the struggle against the ruling class is also completely different. Unlike animals, wage workers can organize to defend themselves, plan strikes and demonstrations, and think about a liberated society. Above all, however, unlike animals, they can analyze the social conditions that make them exploited and dominated and derive concrete steps for organizing their own liberation. Non-human animals, on the other hand, can defend themselves against torture in isolated cases, but because they lack the aforementioned abilities, they can only be objects of liberation from social exploitation.
Anyone who wants to create a world without exploitation, domination, and socially produced suffering must include animals in this endeavor. Firstly, although in a qualitatively different way than wage workers, animals are also exploited in the capitalist production process, and despite all the differences that have developed historically and socially, they share with humans the ability to suffer as a result. Secondly, animal production today, at least in the capitalist centers, is objectively irrational, not least because of the social and ecological damage it causes.
Actually I just went to the store and did NOT grab the steak. Surprisingly this took me less time than going to the meat section.
and then you spent time making this comment instead of helping people end their oppression
I’m not morally obligated to help people or animals every moment of my life. I am morally obligated not to be the cause suffering I could easily prevent.
Your comment implies the same moral superiority you criticize but in the opposite direction
It ends the conversation quickly.
This world, Earth, exists thanks to the chaotic nature of , well, nature. The animals who evolved here did so in a way that would allow them to survive this chaos. This world evolved monsters, some cute, some ugly, but monsters in the end.
They kill, consume…their hunger is endless.
We, Humans, are just like that too.
But unlike animals, humans have the choice not to be a monster. Some people make use of this choice, but most do not. And I think it’s worth thinking about how our society manages to inflict this suffering on animals, even though most people would refuse to inflict suffering on other beings if you asked them.
I’m going to catch lots of flak for this opinion here, but you’re absolutely right and it’s why I’m ok with deer hunters (NOT TROPHY HUNTERS!).
Cause a deer meeting its end with a bullet or arrow is so much quicker than getting too old to outrun a bear, coyotes, or mountain lion. Mountain lions especially are known for leaving them alive but paralyzed for their kittens.
I couldn’t kill bambi’s mom personally but I don’t have a problem with others doing it ethically. But anyone that brags about a whatever number point buck can fuck right off though.
Vegan activists tend to consider hunting to be a low priority for reasons similar to what you’ve described. It doesn’t add much suffering overall assuming the death is quick. Instead, the focus is on the tremendous suffering involved in the meat industry.
And much like everything else in this rage bait world, those practical people don’t get enough attention. I’m not vegan, but I don’t get the random hate they get. Just said the other day here that I actually like the “impossible” line of non meat meats. But remember an article here where some dude was on a Jone 'de Arc type crusade to ban non dairy milks from being called milk.
I just find anger strange I guess.
I know. Killing within melee range is for savages or primitives.
Real advanced species kill from afar. Even better, with just the press of a button. We must learn ways to skip the unnecessary steps
I was agreeing with you. What’s with the hostility?
There’s a difference between killing and eating an animal and the meat industry.
One of the saddest truths about aggresive vegans is that, no matter what they say or write, normal folk won’t care. Yes, we skin 'em, we fry 'em, we eat 'em. Exactly. No matter how you dress that, that’s normal. And you trying to dress it as disgusting is only making it sound more epic.
I don’t think so. In fact, I think most people are very well aware that vegans are essentially right. Inflicting suffering for personal enjoyment is something most people would reject. That’s why indifference towards veganism and vegans isn’t enough. You have to deflect the negative emotions that this would normally trigger in most people. In this respect, it’s only slightly different from MAGAs mocking deported people with Studio Ghibli memes. You turn cruelty into something funny or quirky so that it becomes bearable. This relieves the burden on those who want to cling to it.
No matter how you dress that, that’s normal
Doesn’t make it morally pure in any manner whatsoever
Really just depends on which morals you use.
People are so fucking touchy about their perceived right to eat meat without ever considering the objective realities concerning it
Which objective realities are that?
That mass scale factory farming is horrifically cruel. Indicative of what I’m saying that I would even need to type this.
I mean, sure. I wouldn’t call it an objective reality since you can’t really measure cruelness, but I guess we can agree. But it is something I have considered.
The reality of it is objective fact. How people feel about it is subjective, but I find it disturbing that it’s not pretty universally seen as monstrous behavior.
deleted by creator
As often as Herman had witnessed the slaughter of animals and fish, he always had the same thought: in their behaviour towards creatures, all men were Nazis. The smugness with which man could do with other species as he pleased exemplified the most extreme racist theories, the principle that might is right.
Do you think this way of dressing it makes you sound epic?
If I thought that fish had deep meaningful personal lives in Europe and thousands of years of culture, families that love and care about them, harvesting them might cause me a moments pause, but you’re making a strawman argument. Comparing fishing to deathcamps is fucking insane.
That quote is by Isaac Bashevis Singer, a Polish Jew who fled to the USA to escape the Nazis. And he didn’t think it was insane.
I do
Well that’s because you’re drawing a false equivalence between the factory farming he criticised and a guy fishing in a lake on the weekends.
I also think comparing factory farming to the Holocaust is absurd. The Holocaust was not a vital food source for large portions of the world. I don’t like factory farming, but you and a Holocaust survivor don’t have the merit to make that equivalence in my opinion.
And please miss me with “the world doesn’t need factory farming if we all go vegan” bullshit, I eat meat and you’ll never convince me, or likely anyone not to by making such absurd arguments. It’s why nobody takes vegans seriously.
Also, how do you know a vegan marathon runner trains CrossFit?
They’ve told you.
I mean is it really that absurd? For most people in the US, meat is really not necessary. The only argument would be it’s cheaper, and the reason it’s cheaper is because it’s subsidized. I’m not going to call out the starving guy in Africa for killing a cow or farming pigs, nor the poor person buying the cheap meat. I will call out a person who could swap off meat with minimal changes still supporting the animal industry, and the people who vote for the subsidies.
I say it’s not an absurd comparison because there are some 300 million animals going through factory farming every year, where some animals don’t even have room to stand or turn around and get huge painful wounds all over their body. Same with broiler chickens basically being unable to stand and having heart attacks because their organs are basically being crushed from birth. Not to mention the people working at animal processing facilities end up scarred mentally from seeing blood and death 8 hours a day, where instead they could just be working on a normal farm. This on the scale of 300 million animals… idk like it’s maybe not the same level of brutality but the scale of the suffering is just massive.
The Holocaust was not a vital food source for large portions of the world
That’s technically correct. The Nazis did use concentration camps for slave labour to help their war economy, but slave labour was only a vital food source in other points in history. Drag thinks the Nazis deserved to lose the war, and adults who relied on slaves for food like the colonial Americans deserved to starve. And drag doesn’t draw a distinction between human slavery and animal slavery when drag says that. Drag wants to prevent suffering, and doesn’t care if it’s humans or animals who are suffering. Killing innocents to feed a predator only results in the predator getting hungry again in a few days or weeks. This is an easy trolley problem.
(one of) the problem(s) with Nazis and the Holocaust is precisely that it treated people like animals. that’s what makes it wrong.
Yes, treating anything the way humans treat animals is wrong. Isaac Bashevis Singer lived through the holocaust as a Jewish man, and learned firsthand what suffering is inflicted on the animals. He then wrote this quote.
treating anything the way humans treat animals is wrong
I doubt it.
We are animals. Simplistic in many ways many animals eat meat, and that’s ok. We do it too. We should do it much less from an environmental standpoint. Meat is good to eat, however there is nothing wrong with not eating meat. Plants feel too, not like us for sure but they communicate damage to one another.
Animals also extremely commonly rape and murder, and humans do it too. But we generally try to avoid animal instincts that cause suffering, even if many people naturally would do those things.
Yes. All of this to say, humans are animals. Thanks.
Yes and just because we do it doesn’t make it okay, no? Humans kill each other just like animals, but I’m not going to use that as a justification for killing someone.
Appeal to nature fallacy
Are you implying that people aren’t animals?
No, drag’s implying people don’t have to do something just because it’s natural. Dying of dysentery is natural, but we try to avoid that. That’s why your argument that we should eat meat because it’s natural is silly
Lynchings were normal, should we bring them back too? Normality doesn’t equal what’s right.
should we bring them back
only for people that insist on cheapening human suffering by comparing people to livestock.
deleted by creator
It is possible to care about human suffering and also animal suffering. I can say supporting factory farming is horrible, and the way we treat some people is horrible. Most sane people don’t want animals tortured, and are outraged when someone hurts their pet, but then also support factory farming because having a pig in a 3ft by 3ft cage sitting unable to move for its entire life is based actually.
you can care about them both, but you can’t do anything effective about them both simultaneously
How about a bill that removes subsidies for meat and gives subsidies to fruits and vegetables…? Now you have healthier people and less animal suffering
what bill?
nobody said that. also, “livestock” lmao
At least animals don’t create fascist dictators who threaten nuclear war every time they feel insecure about their small penises.
Not really sure why it’s taken for granted that animals are such low forms of life that being compared to them in any manner is a horrifying insult (it isn’t). And no, I’m not vegan I’m just not so brainwashed I cannot imagine empathy for animals.
being compared to them in any manner
I’m talking about a specific manner
it’s taken for granted that animals are such low forms of life
no one said that
Implying that comparing humans to “livestock”, a word whose purpose itself is to demean, is “cheapening” human life then yes that was absolutely said
the purpose of the term livestock is to differentiate between things farmers raise.
Yes. On the rich.
If you prefer a more aggressive approach, I could fry you.
If you give me a quick death by a bolt through the brain, you can do whatever you want with what’s left.
I’ll agree that factory farming is abhorrent though. Maybe try something about being locked into a small box not even large enough to turn around in, stuck next to your own filth, etc etc.
99% of meat comes from factory farms in the US. For Europe, it’s around 75%. Unless you know where the meat came from and how it treats its animals, you can safely presume the source animal was tortured for it. Calling factory farming abhorrent doesn’t mean much if you still regularly pay for it to continue.
Not sure if you missed my point or are adding onto it.
My point was that most people aren’t too turned off by the idea of eating another creature’s flesh, and the method of food preparation doesn’t really mean shit in terms of cruelty or shock value when it’s already dead/already meat rather than a living thing (unless the prep method is somehow notably wasteful of the material).
If you want to make a strong point in favor vegetarianism or veganism, it’s probably more impactful to focus on the horrors of factory farming than to suggest somethung about frying people.
Yeah, sounds horrible. 😔
I bet I would be tasty
Followed by a pig squeal
Then we use the liquid remains of their children to coat them in crumbs.
…of Crushed plants, that we infested with LIVING FUNGUS, BURNED and them CRUSHED THEM AGAIN!
Is the fungus supposed to be Cheese? Because Yeast is a Bacterial Strain.
EDIT: Nope, turns out it is sort of a fungus. Fungus needs to learn to stay in its fuckin lane, I’m getting tired of its shit.
It’s apparently fungus, I originally wrote Bacteria, then thought about it, googled it and edited my post :P
Nope.
Was hat der Merz in Afrika vermisst?
Das selbe wie überall. Eine Seele
you sure about that?
no
Periods*
chickens don’t have periods
I fucking lost it and laughed out loud at work. I had to explain it to a co-worker. Good thing he is a fan of dark humor and not a vegan.
I’m out here sharing biology facts. what’s the joke?
The whole thread and post is the joke and the unexpected biology facts just got to me, I may be under way too much stress lately, I tend to over react.
