151–160 of 236 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I hate being stuck with a luscious rare filet mignon basked in clarified butter, it's so flavorless that I have to chase it with celery, cucumbers, and lettuce just to stomach it... /s
Anything tastes good in butter. Try some okra or cabbage if you're ready for some flavour.
The sooner we get to true lab grown meat the better Meat is nice but would be better if we can skip the whole suffering thing
I hope that never takes off. I’m not eating that shit for sure.
The sooner we get to true lab grown meat the better Meat is nice but would be better if we can skip the whole suffering thing
This is a false dichotomy. The choice is not lab grown or suffering. Farmed animals could live happy, healthy lives and then be culled in a humane way. The problem is that it costs slightly more and our society is more concerned with cost than animal suffering.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Farmed animals could live happy, healthy lives and then be culled in a humane way. Breeding animals _specifically for killing them_, no matter how they are killed, is not what I'd consider humane. If we take 'humane' literally, it means to be treated as you would treat a human. I doubt we'd do this to humans. So the only way to be okay with this is adhering to a form of specieism.
Many, many people disagree with you. It is not at all a logical, ethical, or emotional contradiction to say that we should have humanely-raised livestock whose purpose is to be slaughtered for meat. We can ensure that they are kept in healthy, safe, and humane ways during their lifetimes, and are killed as quickly, cleanly, and painlessly as we can reasonably manage. And, um, the meaning of "humane" is only loosely r…
That's the first time I ear about supplement being unethical, let alone "compared to factory farming". Stretching the usual arguments, it may be almonds' water or soy in brazil ? I'd be glad you clarify your point.
I can understand and respect no meat people’s position (vegans etc), because it is consistent. Even if I disagree generally. But how can I comprehend people who eat meat and okay with killing animals, but get outraged by so and so practices of growing them? Isn’t it a textbook definition of inconsistency and hypocrisy?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Capitalism precludes slavery. Hmm? Capitalism neither precludes nor predates slavery.
Capitalism precisely precludes slavery. One of the most important and foundational of its principles is private property. The first, most natural, and universal instance of private property is the ownership of one's own body. Heck, we even have the phrase "private parts." Slavery requires the most basic violation of bodily autonomy. In other words, to permit slavery is to permit the violation of the most basic proper…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many, many people disagree with you. It is not at all a logical, ethical, or emotional contradiction to say that we should have humanely-raised livestock whose purpose is to be slaughtered for meat. We can ensure that they are kept in healthy, safe, and humane ways during their lifetimes, and are killed as quickly, cleanly, and painlessly as we can reasonably manage. And, um, the meaning of "humane" is only loosely r…
> supplementing with foods that are at least as unethical as factory farming practices That's the first time I ear about supplement being unethical, let alone "compared to factory farming". Stretching the usual arguments, it may be almonds' water or soy in brazil ? I'd be glad you clarify your point.
The sooner we get to true lab grown meat the better Meat is nice but would be better if we can skip the whole suffering thing
This is a false dichotomy. The choice is not lab grown or suffering. Farmed animals could live happy, healthy lives and then be culled in a humane way. The problem is that it costs slightly more and our society is more concerned with cost than animal suffering.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
You really have nothing productive to say in this thread, you sound irrationally angry. This is a pretty milquetoast philosophical question. If someone asks whether humanity is a net negative environmentally and your only response is to call them whiny losers, maybe you'd be better off on Twitter. I mean I know you understand what an abstract argument, is but you've chosen to interpret it in the laziest way possible…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Farmed animals could live happy, healthy lives and then be culled in a humane way. Breeding animals _specifically for killing them_, no matter how they are killed, is not what I'd consider humane. If we take 'humane' literally, it means to be treated as you would treat a human. I doubt we'd do this to humans. So the only way to be okay with this is adhering to a form of specieism.
Many, many people disagree with you. It is not at all a logical, ethical, or emotional contradiction to say that we should have humanely-raised livestock whose purpose is to be slaughtered for meat. We can ensure that they are kept in healthy, safe, and humane ways during their lifetimes, and are killed as quickly, cleanly, and painlessly as we can reasonably manage. And, um, the meaning of "humane" is only loosely r…
I don’t think you can call it a compassion when you own an animal with sole purpose of efficiently growing it and then killing it so its body can be dismembered and sold off. This is treating animals as property, that produces profit.