this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
689 points (77.8% liked)

World News

39102 readers
2171 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It depends on wether you're actually concerned about the animals, or about yourself.

If you're concerned about the animals, 100 people reducing by 10% is exactly as good as 10 people reducing by 100%. The difference is, 10 people don't have to feel guilty. But no animal benefits from that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Those 100 people would still be eating 90% as many animals as they were before. People don't need to eat animals to live, so expecting praise for eating 10% less is pretty funny.

It'd be like a criminal deciding to decrease the amount of crimes he commits by 10% and expecting people to encourage and praise him.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Everything on the planet eats everything else on the planet.

I'm all for sustainable and ethical meat, but killing a cow for beef is not fucking murder, and doing so has the opposite effect you're intending - it just dilutes definition of murder.

Animals are gonna die. We have so many fucking cows, chickens and pigs on this planet only because we're gonna eat them. Most wouldn't be alive anyway if they weren't grown for food.

Maybe try adjusting your expectations to be in line with fucking reality -- my 4 year old still wishes for a unicorn when she blows out my candles but my 7 year old now wishes for things that might or could actually happen. In other words! Grow up.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Everything on the planet eats everything else on the planet.

I believe that's called the appeal to nature fallacy. Something happening in nature doesn't mean it's morally right. Lions often commit infanticide, but that obviously doesn't make it okay for humans to do.

Most wouldn’t be alive anyway if they weren’t grown for food.

That would be much better than breeding billions of animals and putting them under the conditions we do, just because people like how they taste.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Your 7 year old probably also wishes for world peace, better stop working for a better world!

Everything on this world dies, therefore it's morally totally fine to artificially create, imprison, and then kill billions for no other reason than taste. Every dog dies, therefore shooting them for fun is morally totally fine!

Appeal to nature, seriously, for your 7 year olds sake, look it up.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

See, I don't care about the praise or the feeling of purity or whatever. I care about the actual effect in what is arguably the actual concern, in this case greenhouse gas emissions. And for that, it does not matter if many reduce or few abstain.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Sure, and if you could somehow demonstrate that advocating for 100% means those 100 people are definitely, totally not going to change their consumption at all, you'd have an actual point.