You’re not sitting around waiting until animals die to eat them. The meat industry is not waiting until an animal dies of old age, disease, or a freak accident.
According to the definition of veganism that would technically be vegan.
The Vegan Society defines veganism as:
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
It’s not exploitative or cruel to eat flesh which died for natural reasons. It is exploitative and cruel to prop up an industry which treats animals like objects to be slaughtered painfully at your convenience.
Since you eventually die, is it wrong that you were born?
This is a non-sequitor that implies that it’s okay to kill animals because they eventually die. Ethically, there’s a huge difference between killing someone and someone dying a natural death.
Isn’t it wrong to deny that cow a few years of munching on grass in the sun lit fields?
You don’t only eat grass-fed beef if you ever go out to eat at restaurants. Most cows aren’t grass-fed because we literally don’t have enough grass on this planet to feed them all. Also, grass-fed cows produce more methane, which is a massive contributor to climate change.
Beef cows are slaughtered at 18 months old, and dairy cows are slaughtered at 4-6 years old when their milk production drops. Cows can live 15-20 years naturally, with the oldest cow being 48 years old. Doing the math, that’s like if I killed you when you were 18.
Stop pretending what we do to animals is nice. Just admit you don’t really care about what they go through and would rather eat a burger.
If it wasn’t bred for food consumption, it would’ve never existed.
That’s an argument for existence having moral weight. By this logic, all humans would have as many babies as possible because we’re depriving potential babies of their existence.
Or are saying that it’s okay to do whatever we want to someone, as long as they “owe us” for being the cause of their existence? In that case, I beg you not to have kids.
That’s an argument for existence having moral weight. By this logic, all humans would have as many babies as possible because we’re depriving potential babies of their existence.
I think the catholic cultists would agree with this…
So existance has no moral weight? If we can’t keep an animal with full vet care and comfort to their maximum age we shouldn’t let them procreate? What about wild animals?
I’m not giving answers, just asking questions because I hope you might realize that it’s not so cut and dry. Many practices of the current meat industry are pretty offensive, but there are alternatives.
But you’re welcome to stick blindly to your meat=bad ideology. Simple people need simple rules, and that’s ok.
No, the only people who matter are the ones who are currently alive. People who are alive can experience suffering. People who don’t exist can’t. You can’t say, “but if I never bred the cow to eat, the cow would’ve never existed! So that means it’s a good thing to breed cows.”
You’re trying to say that because something has the potential to exist, that that potential has moral weight. That’s what the argument for existence is.
But that exact same logic can be used for this:
“But if I never forced those women into having kids, the kids would’ve never existed! That’s why it’s good to force women to have kids.”
You see how that makes no sense?
Anyway.
It’s pretty simple to realize that if there’s an alternative to killing and torturing animals for your 10-15 minutes of pleasure at dinner, then you should seek out that alternative. Just because it’s a simple idea doesn’t mean I’m wrong.
Also if you read my post at all, you’d realize I never said meat was bad. I literally pointed out that you’re not waiting around for an animal to die peacefully of old age before eating it. You’re the one simplifying my points and then calling me simple. lol.
If you scroll up:
It’s not exploitative or cruel to eat flesh which died for natural reasons. It is exploitative and cruel to prop up an industry which treats animals like objects to be slaughtered painfully at your convenience.
You say there are alternatives to the meat industry. That’s called veganism.
You’re not sitting around waiting until animals die to eat them. The meat industry is not waiting until an animal dies of old age, disease, or a freak accident.
According to the definition of veganism that would technically be vegan.
The Vegan Society defines veganism as: 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
It’s not exploitative or cruel to eat flesh which died for natural reasons. It is exploitative and cruel to prop up an industry which treats animals like objects to be slaughtered painfully at your convenience.
This is a non-sequitor that implies that it’s okay to kill animals because they eventually die. Ethically, there’s a huge difference between killing someone and someone dying a natural death.
You don’t only eat grass-fed beef if you ever go out to eat at restaurants. Most cows aren’t grass-fed because we literally don’t have enough grass on this planet to feed them all. Also, grass-fed cows produce more methane, which is a massive contributor to climate change.
Beef cows are slaughtered at 18 months old, and dairy cows are slaughtered at 4-6 years old when their milk production drops. Cows can live 15-20 years naturally, with the oldest cow being 48 years old. Doing the math, that’s like if I killed you when you were 18.
Stop pretending what we do to animals is nice. Just admit you don’t really care about what they go through and would rather eat a burger.
That’s an argument for existence having moral weight. By this logic, all humans would have as many babies as possible because we’re depriving potential babies of their existence.
Or are saying that it’s okay to do whatever we want to someone, as long as they “owe us” for being the cause of their existence? In that case, I beg you not to have kids.
I think the catholic cultists would agree with this…
So existance has no moral weight? If we can’t keep an animal with full vet care and comfort to their maximum age we shouldn’t let them procreate? What about wild animals? I’m not giving answers, just asking questions because I hope you might realize that it’s not so cut and dry. Many practices of the current meat industry are pretty offensive, but there are alternatives.
But you’re welcome to stick blindly to your meat=bad ideology. Simple people need simple rules, and that’s ok.
No, the only people who matter are the ones who are currently alive. People who are alive can experience suffering. People who don’t exist can’t. You can’t say, “but if I never bred the cow to eat, the cow would’ve never existed! So that means it’s a good thing to breed cows.”
You’re trying to say that because something has the potential to exist, that that potential has moral weight. That’s what the argument for existence is.
But that exact same logic can be used for this: “But if I never forced those women into having kids, the kids would’ve never existed! That’s why it’s good to force women to have kids.”
You see how that makes no sense?
Anyway.
It’s pretty simple to realize that if there’s an alternative to killing and torturing animals for your 10-15 minutes of pleasure at dinner, then you should seek out that alternative. Just because it’s a simple idea doesn’t mean I’m wrong.
Also if you read my post at all, you’d realize I never said meat was bad. I literally pointed out that you’re not waiting around for an animal to die peacefully of old age before eating it. You’re the one simplifying my points and then calling me simple. lol.
If you scroll up:
You say there are alternatives to the meat industry. That’s called veganism.
You rape them into existence. Stop raping animals.