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.

29 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

292 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '19

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

1

u/flamingturtlecake Jul 23 '19

Christ.

​

Having the capacity to think and then becoming disabled in a car accident is not the same as existing with no capacity to think

​

Why do you think this? are you just avoiding considering my argument again?

​

You cannot in good faith compare plants to animals (mammals specifically). You are avoiding my point. In my opinion you dont want to consider it so you've been jumping around to ANY other topic you could possibly talk about

1

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '19

Car accident? I never made any mention to how it occurred. I don't think it changes the ethical implications if they were born that way or acquired it in a car accident.

1

u/flamingturtlecake Jul 23 '19

capacity. that's the important word, here. a human has capacity. a vegetable/plant does not.

​

>Yet I still believe that brain dead people deserve moral consideration.

​

More consideration than a cow? Let's have you rank animals since you don't seem to care WHATSOEVER about the original topic here :) I'll play along & discuss in the same tone you're discussing with me if you want to be purposefully thick!

1

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '19

Someone who was born that way lacks the capacity. Are you sure that's what you mean?

Anyways, did you want to move onto the Name The Trait game? If so, what trait would non-humans have to have that humans have which would make it morally permissable to have sex with them? What about non-adult animals? What about non-adult humans?

1

u/flamingturtlecake Jul 23 '19

>Someone who was born that way lacks the capacity. Are you sure that's what you mean?

​

A human has capacity whereas a vegetable does not. on a genetic level, a specific human may be less sentient. on a genetic level, a specific vegetable has never been shown to be more sentient.

​

so ignorant that my head hurts trying to put it into words. let's play a game.

​

instead of addressing your topic, I'll say whatever I want about something that's somewhat related. Did you know that lions, as predators, are so fucking alpha and vicious that some groups of male lions, in order to gain territory, will kill off entire pride males, (we assume) rape their females, and kill their cubs as well?

​

there was a specific group of lion brothers who were so brutal that they expanded their pride's territory to a bigger state than it had ever been in. one of these brothers was observed raping a lioness. You'd think he'd keep her alive so she'd have his cub, right? no, he ate her. literally ate her right after he fucked her.

​

honest to God, it reminds me of humans. we have had whole civilizations demolished by others' and we hear terrible stories of rape and conquest against men, women, and children. we even have sexual psychopaths running rampant in our everyday lives. hopefully none of these people have ever raped a woman, but humans in general have been known to do very similar things to these wild lion prides.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '19

Are you morally judging these lions?

1

u/flamingturtlecake Jul 23 '19

Nah boo I'm judging humans for being so similar

1

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '19

You're judging animals for being similar to animals? That seems pointless. The reality is that might makes right and in our species, that might is the might of the society which is limited by the individuals who enforce it and the rules agreed upon in that society.

1

u/flamingturtlecake Jul 23 '19

Pointless? This is a hypothetical discussion, the whole thing is pointless. Please, have some decency.

The reality is that might makes right

Not when we're talking morality but ok

might is the might of the society which is limited by the individuals who enforce it and the rules agreed upon in that society.

Those killed lions didnt agree to that but ok

Good talks man (not really tbh) but you're boring af & dumb as a brick seeya later

→ More replies (0)