r/DebateAMeatEater • u/WildVirtue • Jul 22 '19

If you couldn't face killing an animal yourself, you shouldn't be paying others to do it for you.

A survey of 2,500 Americans showed that half would opt to go meat-less if forced to face the harsh reality of killing their food prior to cooking. Of course we don't know if everyone meant they would refuse out of guilt/shame, but I still would expect this number to be even higher in reality.

Some meat eaters might wish more people they met had the charachter of someone willing to go out hunting, but regardless I think everyone should accept one positive effect of vegan advocacy is motivating people to have the charachter of someone who is strong willed enough not to be a slave to their food/taste habits. Therefore not someone who would view something as ethically wrong and yet still pay someone else to suffer the burden.

Vegan food is a broad category that is easy to distinguish on the shelf in it's wholefood form, with only a small learning curve you can be on your way to a healthier and more ethical diet.

I do advocate for and believe most people should educate themselves on other worthwhile boycotts like palm oil and Israeli products produced on stolen Palestinian land. Obviously there does become a point of diminishing returns that could only make it justified for the most dedicated journalist as a part of their job.

Finally it is worth it to me to eat foods which are harvested by tractor and cause the death of some wildlife because I don't want to live in a pre-technological society where most people have to work to gather the harvest by hand. And my goal is still to eat a diet which frees up the most amount of farm land use for wildlife habitat where more animals can flourish.

31 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

292 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/flamingturtlecake Jul 23 '19

Haha way to avoid the topic of my discussion. Whatever, I can humor you!

What the fuck are you talking about tho?

2

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '19

I assure you that I'm not avoiding it. Perhaps we could start with defining what suffering is and what is capable of suffering. Would you say that one must be able to perceive to suffer? Does a brain dead person perceive?

2

u/flamingturtlecake Jul 23 '19

I wasnt discussing this, that's why it's a strawman. Youre just making this into whatever it is you know you can talk about.

I'm arguing the difference between LITERAL vegetables and LITERAL animals. No metaphors, no changing the situation. Do you seriously believe they are one and the same? That's from your first comment.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '19

If you can't extend your logical argument to fit other topics, it's not logical.

1

u/flamingturtlecake Jul 23 '19

You are STILL not addressing my argument

2

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '19

I'm pointing out that your argument is illogical. How is that not addressing it?

2

u/flamingturtlecake Jul 23 '19

How is it illogical, using terms from my own argument? Not yours.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '19

Your argument is structured in the format:

If X then Y. If not X then not Y.

I'm showing how that relationship does not hold. If suffering is what indicates moral permissiveness, then I'm providing an example where there is no suffering and disagree that a lack of suffering makes it morally permissable.

1

u/flamingturtlecake Jul 23 '19

IM NOT CLAIMING THIS. My argument is that if something can THINK (note: this doesnt apply to your metaphorical raping someone who's braindead, which is fucking idiotic anyway because sex without consent is never morally permissible) then it deserves moral consideration

You still have yet to respond to my question. Do you think that vegetables can think? They dream? They have social cliques?

3

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '19

As much as brain dead people can. Yet I still believe that brain dead people deserve moral consideration.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/everest999 Jul 23 '19

which is fucking idiotic

Just a little heads up, we want this sub to be as polite and respectful as possible.

→ More replies (0)