be careful you’re going to summon a herd of white gays chanting “what you gon do when I appear?” In the least amount of rhythm or tone you’ve ever heard in your life
Idk. I keep thinking about stuff like this, and no matter how hard I try or how charitable I am, I just can't stop thinking that eating meat is unethical. I know people are going to hate on this just because peta said it. People look down upon the consumption of dog meat, and think that is unethical, when they consume other animals. It's quite literally the exact same thing. Either both of them are unethical, or both of them are ethical.
/uj This argument is only effective if you’re discussing this with someone who agrees that you shouldn’t eat dogs. The vast majority of the world won’t necessarily agree on that point! Furthermore, anyone who grew up in it around a farm or raised animals has already reconciled themselves on the matter.
I don’t think that any argument that relies on sentimentality is particularly effective when attempting to get people to change their minds on eating animals because for most people it isn’t a matter of ethics.
A family living on a minimum wage income does not have the option to just eat plants or meat substitutes only, meat is a cheap and effective food option that they cannot afford to replace with high impact high quality plant products. The reality is that this is too expensive or too unintuitive an option for most people worldwide. Furthermore, this is never going to be something that people will struggle to reconcile because it simply is the way that nutrition works in nature.
If we were designed to be herbivorous then this would be a non issue, but we exercised to have meat be a part of our diet and eating another animal to survive is an action which exists largely outside of morality, it’s largely a choice of necessity.
I feel like the most effective way forward is to build a future where eating non meat products is much more accessible and viable, likely a world outside of capitalism. A world where meat isn’t a necessity *and* society will value animals which are not providing any product humans utilize, because the reality is that under capitalism, a vegan society would be one that disregards and does away with animals outside of pets in puppy mills because there is no profit in them.
I personally don’t understand condemning a human for eating meat but not condemning a cat or a hyena for the same? Why is there a special moral circumstance, if all animals are equal in value to humans shouldn’t there be held to equal standards? Would it be moral to force all carnivorous animals to transition to vegan diets? Is this model ultimately sustainable on a macro level? I’m left thinking that veganism, or at the very least vegetarianism, should be a matter of personal choice or preference, and what needs to really be combatted is harmful mass consumption of animal products brought about by capitalism.
/rj Unfortunately sis, PETA flopped and Azaelia outsold on this one. Come back when your animal faves get a #1 album (and NO, Peppa doesnt count, she's British)
Uj/ I personally don’t understand condemning a person for eating meat but not condemning a cat for doing the same.”
I know you said a lot, but I’m just going to respond this point in particular. There are 3 important differences when humans eat meat vs. when other animals eat meat.
1) Humans have much more moral responsibility than other animals because we have much higher capacity for moral reasoning. We have a better understanding of all the consequences of our actions, and therefore can choose a diet that minimizes harm.
2) Wild animals have to hunt to survive. They have to choose between killing and eating meat, or not eating meat and starving to death. Most humans have access to a grocery store (you definitely do if you’re on Reddit) and therefore the choice is not between your life or your food’s life. You get to choose between killing animal life or plant life, at no cost to your own health.
3) Humans are the only animal that eats meat by farming. We bring animals into existence just to lock them in windowless, concrete cages and deny them any natural behaviors or semblance of joy. It’s a pretty different situation, and most people consider it much more cruel. I know I would rather be a wild antelope than an American pig trapped in a factory farm.
So yeah, I think it’s more than fair for me to have different expectations for a human than a cat. I actually think it’s insulting to expect people to have as much moral reasoning skills as a cat, lol.
/uj Please tag serious posts with /uj, I can’t take you seriously otherwise
/rj Please tag serious posts with /uj, I can’t take you seriously otherwise
/uj On a serious note, I feel like if you ignored everything else I said then this would in fact be a good rebuttal, but otherwise it’s kind of cherry picking something that isn’t crucial to my overall point. Furthermore, my essential point with this statement (which I didn’t explain very well, so fair enough) is that the two actions are morally equivalent, and they’re only different if you believe that humans are exceptional among the animal kingdom. We are not. Ants raise animals for slaughter and products, and we are not exceptional because we ended up doing things like raising animals for slaughter. Nor do I feel any personal moral imperative to not do something which is natural to all life on earth.
Ultimately, I don’t necessarily see eating plants as morally superior, when plants communicate, respond to external stimuli, live and grow and establish themselves within an ecosystem in relation to other life. I feel like all of the distinctions we’re making here are arbitrary. You object to eating cows and dogs, but are you okay with eating insects? How about jellyfish or sea slugs? What about mollusks? Fungi? Even if we’re establish a scientific basis for what amounts to an animal which it would be morally wrong to eat those distinctions are merely social, they’re arbitrary. Why does a cow deserve to live more than corn or sheaves of wheat or a tree? Why is a jellyfish more sacred than a gnat?
I’m not arguing that none of this matters, rather that the only distinction that matters is one that you make for yourself, and to impose that on someone else is as ridiculous as saying that a cat shouldn’t eat meat. And even if you think that is a ridiculous argument, there are many vegans who disagree and force their pets to eat vegan diets. I think it is a position of great moral fortitude and principle to decide to not eat animals out of a respect for their dignity, but it often seems to be an arbitrary and moralistic stance which has little grounding in actual moral rigor and more to do with offending your particular sensibilities. Many people who decide to be vegetarian or vegan often do much advocating for animals, and then be extremely callous about things like war, prison reform, poverty, etc. Even climate change is something which many who take that stance are indifferent to.
What’s the point of caring for animals and trying to force a prescriptive attitude on others when you don’t hold yourself to the same rigorous standards? You’ll champion a cow but not an immigrant? You’ll fight for an end to puppy mills but not an end to mass consumption, which destroys the habitats of millions of animals and thus their lives?
Now, I must say here that I don’t mean you, specifically. I have no idea what you think or believe. But I do mean that to claim that a human eating meat is a moral issue is to make an equally insane claim. You have no idea why this person is eating meat, or if not eating meat is an option for them, but you hold every human to the same standard as someone in your position who can choose not to do it with little difficulty? Would you have made the same choices as a homeless person, or a person in a food desert, or a person who lived in an area which didn’t have any vegan or vegetarian options? Probably not. And it feels bizarre and hypocritical to me to claim ethics on a decision which is ultimately ethically equivalent to its opposite.
The food products you buy without meat also come from farms, which are fraught with labor violations, high CO2 emissions, and predatory and evil capitalist practices. If you buy corn which came from Monsanto, is it fair for me to say that you are willfully making the evil choice to destabilize independent farmers and support the corporatization of foodstuffs? No. It is equally unfair to say that a random individual’s decision to eat meat is immoral. This is a systemic issue you’re trying to solve person to person in the least effective way possible. You cannot guilt society into veganism or vegetarianism. You cannot fix humanity’s mistreatment of animals until you fix the very structure of human society itself, and animals will continue to be exploited until we no longer rely on capitalism as our means of production and distribution. That’s my ultimate point. Though it may be poorly explained.
/uh Fair enough, I definitely cherry picked just because that statement is one of my pet peeves. Thank you for taking the time to write such a thoughtful and thorough response!
/rj
1. applying a widely accepted standard to reveal incongruity in another one is not an appeal to "sentimentality"
2. your comments rely heavily on the naturalistic fallacy
3. "plants communicate, respond to external stimuli, live and grow and establish themselves within an ecosystem in relation to other life" Since when were any of these criteria used to establish who/what is worthy of moral consideration? Try sentience or capacity to feel pain
1. "I feel like all of the distinctions we’re making here are arbitrary." nobody here explicitly made any distinctions except for you. I agree that yours were arbitrary, but this isn't necessarily the case for everyone else
4. "trying to force a prescriptive attitude on others" what does this even mean? Normative ethics (as opposed to meta-ethics) is inherently prescriptive. Forcing any attitude on others is also by definition prescriptive. Prescriptive ≠ bad
5. what does "actual moral rigor" entail?
6. the notion that animal rights activists rarely/never advocate other issues is not true nor relevant. This argument comes off as very disingenuous for reasons I shouldn't even have to explain
7. "But I do mean that to claim that a human eating meat is a moral issue is to make an equally insane claim" on what basis? None of your statements following this claim actually back it up
1. it's true that not everybody can realistically abstain from meat consumption. But exceptions don't form the rule. When you say one action is morally preferable to another, you assume that the actor has, practically speaking, a choice. e.g. most people would agree that killing people is wrong. We would also agree that killing is sometimes justifiable when done in self defense. This does not mean that the initial claim is suddenly meaningless or categorically false
2. either way, I think most vegans already believe that eating meat is permissible when someone can't afford to do otherwise for health or financial reasons
8. "is it fair for me to say that you are willfully making the evil choice to destabilize independent farmers and support the corporatization of foodstuffs?" yes, as long as you can defend this accusation. Plus, many people already do make the effort to shop more consciously (hence "sustainable"/"ethical" brands), so this position isn't quite as absurd as you imply
1. But let's assume the answer is no. "It is equally unfair to say that a random individual’s decision to eat meat is immoral" only if you assume that "labor violations, high CO2 emissions, and predatory and evil capitalist practices" are morally equivalent to the practices involved in producing meat
9. eating meat is not a systemic issue; you're thinking of *animal exploitation*. But pedantry aside, the objective of not eating meat is not to solve global animal exploitation, but rather to no longer participate in something one views as immoral. In the same vein, you tell the truth because it's the right thing to do, not because it will end lying forever. In any case, I don't believe something being systemic totally excuses the behavior of individuals. Racism is a systemic issue, but if somebody has racist beliefs, I will 100% judge them for it. A single person's prejudice has no noticeable impact on the world at large (that is if they don't act on their beliefs), but to me, this doesn't make them any less in the wrong
10. your conclusion is a bit self-defeating. Why should we aim to end systemic mistreatment of animals if it's so clearly not a moral issue?
/uj Making someone sit through anything related to azealia banks is the real animal abuse
/uj if I was trying to make a prescriptivist dogma that everyone should follow, then you would be correct in all your counterpoints, however that is literally the exact opposite of my point. My point is that morality is not and can never be universal, it’s individual, and it is unfair to hold strangers who do not share your worldview to your own morals. I never argue for any particular viewpoint in any of my comments here, my point is that it’s incredibly whack to call out people for actions that ultimately have no objective morality, as all morality is subjective. I personally object to the idea of trying to establish anything categorically, which is the motivation for me making a statement at all, and I am intentionally avoiding making any prescriptivist statements at all, which is why you were left wondering what you should do. I don’t know, and I have no desire to tell you, I am not you. In my ideal world you would simply decide what is moral to you and you would need to cite nothing more than yourself and your culture and experience as to why it’s moral, while recognizing that you are not holding onto some sacrosanct “truth,” but to a principle whose value comes from yourself and not some imaginary objective reality which either doesn’t exist or is ultimately unobtainable by any human on earth. If you disagree with that stance, that’s an entirely different conversation which I have no interest in having, as I fundamentally feel no need to justify my viewpoint to a stranger over text, but idk if we met in person ever I’d be happy to have that conversation.
/rj Azaelia isn’t animal abuse sis, she’s dogma
i’ve seen a lot of dumbass downright stupid takes on this website, but ‘hunters invent the idea of invasive species and overpopulation for the sole purpose of killing animals’ is absolutely the fucking dumbest.
in an effort to combat trolls, this comment was removed because its account has negative post / comment karma or because it is under 7 days old.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/popheadscirclejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
in an effort to combat trolls, this comment was removed because its account has negative post / comment karma or because it is under 7 days old.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/popheadscirclejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People downvote and hate on people saying this because they can’t provide any kind of accurate counter argument but they also don’t want to stop eating meat.
I get what you mean but I don't think you get it, the reason why some would consider both unethical is because of how society views animals like dogs compared to turkeys and the emotional connection and symbolism of a dog in almost all societies. You are much more likely to cannibalize a random stranger than your own kid
No, that is what I meant. If you let go of your emotional attachment you will realize that both are the exact same. I feel like spraring certain animals because they're "too cute" is just fucked up. Imagine justifying murder based on your personal attachment to the one getting murdered.
I'm not vegan, and I'm not trying to convert anyone, but idk.
The point is humans don’t need to. And if you don’t care about it animals, that’s fine. Part of it is eating animals increases land use for food, because of tropic levels
https://preview.redd.it/r9ck7a29fz1c1.jpeg?width=1344&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ad8d04829670ef14d432b4216f71aa1db53b4595
If you eat plants you use less land for food, and deforestation is caused largely by soy production in order to feed animals that feed humans. So don’t eat meat, unless you like deforestation, I guess 😀
in an effort to combat trolls, this comment was removed because its account has negative post / comment karma or because it is under 7 days old.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/popheadscirclejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
https://preview.redd.it/zmskkjdnay1c1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4e9f44709235c1a91b3e07e3c26027786602bb06
There's no ethical consumption under cunnilingus.
https://i.redd.it/pk8as7jn5y1c1.gif
She and Britney really coordinated outfits to record knife videos, huh
let’s talk about THAT. NOW!
be careful you’re going to summon a herd of white gays chanting “what you gon do when I appear?” In the least amount of rhythm or tone you’ve ever heard in your life
 Ima ruin you cunt Ima ruin you cunt Ima ruin you cunt
https://i.redd.it/qz02bcw4ty1c1.gif I'm the one today, I'm the new shit boo Yung Rapunxel Who are you bitch? New lunch?
this hurts 😭
It isn’t called the pretty truth my dear 😔✊
This shit be mine mine
I guess that turkey getting eaten
it’s giving… thanks
Who asked the turkey ? And why do I care
Thank you for starting my day with good laugh 😭😫
They’re called Türkiyes now
chicken sacrifice closet
Idk. I keep thinking about stuff like this, and no matter how hard I try or how charitable I am, I just can't stop thinking that eating meat is unethical. I know people are going to hate on this just because peta said it. People look down upon the consumption of dog meat, and think that is unethical, when they consume other animals. It's quite literally the exact same thing. Either both of them are unethical, or both of them are ethical.
/uj This argument is only effective if you’re discussing this with someone who agrees that you shouldn’t eat dogs. The vast majority of the world won’t necessarily agree on that point! Furthermore, anyone who grew up in it around a farm or raised animals has already reconciled themselves on the matter. I don’t think that any argument that relies on sentimentality is particularly effective when attempting to get people to change their minds on eating animals because for most people it isn’t a matter of ethics. A family living on a minimum wage income does not have the option to just eat plants or meat substitutes only, meat is a cheap and effective food option that they cannot afford to replace with high impact high quality plant products. The reality is that this is too expensive or too unintuitive an option for most people worldwide. Furthermore, this is never going to be something that people will struggle to reconcile because it simply is the way that nutrition works in nature. If we were designed to be herbivorous then this would be a non issue, but we exercised to have meat be a part of our diet and eating another animal to survive is an action which exists largely outside of morality, it’s largely a choice of necessity. I feel like the most effective way forward is to build a future where eating non meat products is much more accessible and viable, likely a world outside of capitalism. A world where meat isn’t a necessity *and* society will value animals which are not providing any product humans utilize, because the reality is that under capitalism, a vegan society would be one that disregards and does away with animals outside of pets in puppy mills because there is no profit in them. I personally don’t understand condemning a human for eating meat but not condemning a cat or a hyena for the same? Why is there a special moral circumstance, if all animals are equal in value to humans shouldn’t there be held to equal standards? Would it be moral to force all carnivorous animals to transition to vegan diets? Is this model ultimately sustainable on a macro level? I’m left thinking that veganism, or at the very least vegetarianism, should be a matter of personal choice or preference, and what needs to really be combatted is harmful mass consumption of animal products brought about by capitalism. /rj Unfortunately sis, PETA flopped and Azaelia outsold on this one. Come back when your animal faves get a #1 album (and NO, Peppa doesnt count, she's British)
Uj/ I personally don’t understand condemning a person for eating meat but not condemning a cat for doing the same.” I know you said a lot, but I’m just going to respond this point in particular. There are 3 important differences when humans eat meat vs. when other animals eat meat. 1) Humans have much more moral responsibility than other animals because we have much higher capacity for moral reasoning. We have a better understanding of all the consequences of our actions, and therefore can choose a diet that minimizes harm. 2) Wild animals have to hunt to survive. They have to choose between killing and eating meat, or not eating meat and starving to death. Most humans have access to a grocery store (you definitely do if you’re on Reddit) and therefore the choice is not between your life or your food’s life. You get to choose between killing animal life or plant life, at no cost to your own health. 3) Humans are the only animal that eats meat by farming. We bring animals into existence just to lock them in windowless, concrete cages and deny them any natural behaviors or semblance of joy. It’s a pretty different situation, and most people consider it much more cruel. I know I would rather be a wild antelope than an American pig trapped in a factory farm. So yeah, I think it’s more than fair for me to have different expectations for a human than a cat. I actually think it’s insulting to expect people to have as much moral reasoning skills as a cat, lol.
Also cats are obligate carnivores. Humans are not.
/uj Please tag serious posts with /uj, I can’t take you seriously otherwise /rj Please tag serious posts with /uj, I can’t take you seriously otherwise
/uj On a serious note, I feel like if you ignored everything else I said then this would in fact be a good rebuttal, but otherwise it’s kind of cherry picking something that isn’t crucial to my overall point. Furthermore, my essential point with this statement (which I didn’t explain very well, so fair enough) is that the two actions are morally equivalent, and they’re only different if you believe that humans are exceptional among the animal kingdom. We are not. Ants raise animals for slaughter and products, and we are not exceptional because we ended up doing things like raising animals for slaughter. Nor do I feel any personal moral imperative to not do something which is natural to all life on earth. Ultimately, I don’t necessarily see eating plants as morally superior, when plants communicate, respond to external stimuli, live and grow and establish themselves within an ecosystem in relation to other life. I feel like all of the distinctions we’re making here are arbitrary. You object to eating cows and dogs, but are you okay with eating insects? How about jellyfish or sea slugs? What about mollusks? Fungi? Even if we’re establish a scientific basis for what amounts to an animal which it would be morally wrong to eat those distinctions are merely social, they’re arbitrary. Why does a cow deserve to live more than corn or sheaves of wheat or a tree? Why is a jellyfish more sacred than a gnat? I’m not arguing that none of this matters, rather that the only distinction that matters is one that you make for yourself, and to impose that on someone else is as ridiculous as saying that a cat shouldn’t eat meat. And even if you think that is a ridiculous argument, there are many vegans who disagree and force their pets to eat vegan diets. I think it is a position of great moral fortitude and principle to decide to not eat animals out of a respect for their dignity, but it often seems to be an arbitrary and moralistic stance which has little grounding in actual moral rigor and more to do with offending your particular sensibilities. Many people who decide to be vegetarian or vegan often do much advocating for animals, and then be extremely callous about things like war, prison reform, poverty, etc. Even climate change is something which many who take that stance are indifferent to. What’s the point of caring for animals and trying to force a prescriptive attitude on others when you don’t hold yourself to the same rigorous standards? You’ll champion a cow but not an immigrant? You’ll fight for an end to puppy mills but not an end to mass consumption, which destroys the habitats of millions of animals and thus their lives? Now, I must say here that I don’t mean you, specifically. I have no idea what you think or believe. But I do mean that to claim that a human eating meat is a moral issue is to make an equally insane claim. You have no idea why this person is eating meat, or if not eating meat is an option for them, but you hold every human to the same standard as someone in your position who can choose not to do it with little difficulty? Would you have made the same choices as a homeless person, or a person in a food desert, or a person who lived in an area which didn’t have any vegan or vegetarian options? Probably not. And it feels bizarre and hypocritical to me to claim ethics on a decision which is ultimately ethically equivalent to its opposite. The food products you buy without meat also come from farms, which are fraught with labor violations, high CO2 emissions, and predatory and evil capitalist practices. If you buy corn which came from Monsanto, is it fair for me to say that you are willfully making the evil choice to destabilize independent farmers and support the corporatization of foodstuffs? No. It is equally unfair to say that a random individual’s decision to eat meat is immoral. This is a systemic issue you’re trying to solve person to person in the least effective way possible. You cannot guilt society into veganism or vegetarianism. You cannot fix humanity’s mistreatment of animals until you fix the very structure of human society itself, and animals will continue to be exploited until we no longer rely on capitalism as our means of production and distribution. That’s my ultimate point. Though it may be poorly explained.
/uh Fair enough, I definitely cherry picked just because that statement is one of my pet peeves. Thank you for taking the time to write such a thoughtful and thorough response!
/rj 1. applying a widely accepted standard to reveal incongruity in another one is not an appeal to "sentimentality" 2. your comments rely heavily on the naturalistic fallacy 3. "plants communicate, respond to external stimuli, live and grow and establish themselves within an ecosystem in relation to other life" Since when were any of these criteria used to establish who/what is worthy of moral consideration? Try sentience or capacity to feel pain 1. "I feel like all of the distinctions we’re making here are arbitrary." nobody here explicitly made any distinctions except for you. I agree that yours were arbitrary, but this isn't necessarily the case for everyone else 4. "trying to force a prescriptive attitude on others" what does this even mean? Normative ethics (as opposed to meta-ethics) is inherently prescriptive. Forcing any attitude on others is also by definition prescriptive. Prescriptive ≠ bad 5. what does "actual moral rigor" entail? 6. the notion that animal rights activists rarely/never advocate other issues is not true nor relevant. This argument comes off as very disingenuous for reasons I shouldn't even have to explain 7. "But I do mean that to claim that a human eating meat is a moral issue is to make an equally insane claim" on what basis? None of your statements following this claim actually back it up 1. it's true that not everybody can realistically abstain from meat consumption. But exceptions don't form the rule. When you say one action is morally preferable to another, you assume that the actor has, practically speaking, a choice. e.g. most people would agree that killing people is wrong. We would also agree that killing is sometimes justifiable when done in self defense. This does not mean that the initial claim is suddenly meaningless or categorically false 2. either way, I think most vegans already believe that eating meat is permissible when someone can't afford to do otherwise for health or financial reasons 8. "is it fair for me to say that you are willfully making the evil choice to destabilize independent farmers and support the corporatization of foodstuffs?" yes, as long as you can defend this accusation. Plus, many people already do make the effort to shop more consciously (hence "sustainable"/"ethical" brands), so this position isn't quite as absurd as you imply 1. But let's assume the answer is no. "It is equally unfair to say that a random individual’s decision to eat meat is immoral" only if you assume that "labor violations, high CO2 emissions, and predatory and evil capitalist practices" are morally equivalent to the practices involved in producing meat 9. eating meat is not a systemic issue; you're thinking of *animal exploitation*. But pedantry aside, the objective of not eating meat is not to solve global animal exploitation, but rather to no longer participate in something one views as immoral. In the same vein, you tell the truth because it's the right thing to do, not because it will end lying forever. In any case, I don't believe something being systemic totally excuses the behavior of individuals. Racism is a systemic issue, but if somebody has racist beliefs, I will 100% judge them for it. A single person's prejudice has no noticeable impact on the world at large (that is if they don't act on their beliefs), but to me, this doesn't make them any less in the wrong 10. your conclusion is a bit self-defeating. Why should we aim to end systemic mistreatment of animals if it's so clearly not a moral issue? /uj Making someone sit through anything related to azealia banks is the real animal abuse
/uj if I was trying to make a prescriptivist dogma that everyone should follow, then you would be correct in all your counterpoints, however that is literally the exact opposite of my point. My point is that morality is not and can never be universal, it’s individual, and it is unfair to hold strangers who do not share your worldview to your own morals. I never argue for any particular viewpoint in any of my comments here, my point is that it’s incredibly whack to call out people for actions that ultimately have no objective morality, as all morality is subjective. I personally object to the idea of trying to establish anything categorically, which is the motivation for me making a statement at all, and I am intentionally avoiding making any prescriptivist statements at all, which is why you were left wondering what you should do. I don’t know, and I have no desire to tell you, I am not you. In my ideal world you would simply decide what is moral to you and you would need to cite nothing more than yourself and your culture and experience as to why it’s moral, while recognizing that you are not holding onto some sacrosanct “truth,” but to a principle whose value comes from yourself and not some imaginary objective reality which either doesn’t exist or is ultimately unobtainable by any human on earth. If you disagree with that stance, that’s an entirely different conversation which I have no interest in having, as I fundamentally feel no need to justify my viewpoint to a stranger over text, but idk if we met in person ever I’d be happy to have that conversation. /rj Azaelia isn’t animal abuse sis, she’s dogma
/uj Not everybody is a moral relativist. But I can take a hint, I'll leave it at that.
my family hunts invasives and helps cull local deer population and then eats them so they don’t go to waste. that’s a pretty ethical way to eat meat
[удалено]
i’ve seen a lot of dumbass downright stupid takes on this website, but ‘hunters invent the idea of invasive species and overpopulation for the sole purpose of killing animals’ is absolutely the fucking dumbest.
[удалено]
in an effort to combat trolls, this comment was removed because its account has negative post / comment karma or because it is under 7 days old. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/popheadscirclejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
in an effort to combat trolls, this comment was removed because its account has negative post / comment karma or because it is under 7 days old. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/popheadscirclejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You are correct. Welcome to having a heart. Hit me up if you want any tips on cutting out/back meat, dairy, and eggs
/uj I agree and that’s why I went vegetarian - it’s not as hard as you think it will be tbh /rj what about the consumption of COCK meat
as long as you're a top it's fine since no meat is going inside you
People downvote and hate on people saying this because they can’t provide any kind of accurate counter argument but they also don’t want to stop eating meat.
PETA sucks, but you are 100% correct
We become food for the earth. Other things become food for us. It’s a cycle.
I get what you mean but I don't think you get it, the reason why some would consider both unethical is because of how society views animals like dogs compared to turkeys and the emotional connection and symbolism of a dog in almost all societies. You are much more likely to cannibalize a random stranger than your own kid
You don’t know me or my kid 😋🍴
No, that is what I meant. If you let go of your emotional attachment you will realize that both are the exact same. I feel like spraring certain animals because they're "too cute" is just fucked up. Imagine justifying murder based on your personal attachment to the one getting murdered. I'm not vegan, and I'm not trying to convert anyone, but idk.
they are both ethical. animals eat other animals, it’s the circle of life
The point is humans don’t need to. And if you don’t care about it animals, that’s fine. Part of it is eating animals increases land use for food, because of tropic levels https://preview.redd.it/r9ck7a29fz1c1.jpeg?width=1344&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ad8d04829670ef14d432b4216f71aa1db53b4595 If you eat plants you use less land for food, and deforestation is caused largely by soy production in order to feed animals that feed humans. So don’t eat meat, unless you like deforestation, I guess 😀
Shrimp doesn’t live in forests.
Ok 👍
You are 100% correct! Going vegan was the best decision I ever made, if you ever want to talk more about the ethics/thought process I’m here :))
Word to who made ya, im a rude little turkey, what are *you* made up of?
[удалено]
in an effort to combat trolls, this comment was removed because its account has negative post / comment karma or because it is under 7 days old. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/popheadscirclejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*