• debil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      26
      ·
      1 year ago

      One of the diets require killing, the other one doesn’t. Be the better person and choose the latter.

        • debil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s the omnis with bad conscience, not the community members.

        • Torvum@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          Because this loser mentality of “it needs killing”. Yeah it’s called the circle of life. I guess we morally shame owls for hunting the mice that hunted the insects. If you want to make a statement on factory farms and torturous methodology, that’s one thing. But death is a part of life, and having meaning in death to provide nutrition for continuation of life is just a reality.

      • Hereforpron2@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        All those immoral lions relying on killing for their food. Just unnatural and immoral. If humans were meant to eat meat, we’d have teeth specifically adapted for it and digestive systems designed for omnivorous diets. Oh wait…

        • debil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          Oh yes, we borrow our moral from lions so eating one’s own children is equally alright then.

          • Hereforpron2@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’ll have to take that one up with Jonathan Swift. He makes some pretty convincing (obviously satirical) arguments.

            Obviously it’s not 1:1 and there are plenty of carnivorous/omnivorous animals you might find less objectionable, but the point is that there has to be some acceptance of nuance on both sides or neither can ever be “right.” The claim that veganism can’t be healthy is obviously BS, but so is the claim that there’s nothing at all that can make meat eating acceptable.

            Tbh though, I was scrolling “all” and didn’t notice this was posted to the vegan community. I wouldn’t have interjected just to say this if so, cuz I think going out of your way to be combative on any side of an argument tends to be counterproductive and more about oneself than the actual issue. So my apologies for that, but I stand by the point that there are ethical ways to eat meat that both omnivores and vegans would benefit from recognizing. If its a black and white issue, factory farming is no worse than raising your own livestock sustainably or hunting invasive species for meat. Rather than push people towards better habits, the all or nothing murder argument encourages an acceptance of the status quo by saying “meat is meat and it’s all equally murderous according to vegans, so I might as well go for the cheapest stuff that is easiest to find if I am going to continue eating it.” In any case, this isn’t the place for a two-sided debate as a community by and for only one side of that debate. Zero judgment there, just didn’t mean to start one in that context.

      • Tischkante@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        This makes it easy to argument against and if arguments start, information is lost. Someone could say crop death, eating more vegan food than absolutely necessary to survive.

        Vegan candy, tasty but all the crop death. I’d recommend simple arguments like, I love animals and only want to hurt them as little as reasonably possible.

        It’s not as flashy as “the least amount of harm possible” I know, but it’s at least the Truth. I think the difference between a vegan and others is only the level of harm they’re willing to cause. But then again it was always like that. You’re just lower than others in that animal-harm spectrum and not the absolute bottom. But still a lot lower.

        • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          “I’m not vegetarian because I love animals. I’m vegetarian because FUCK Plants.”

          -one of my vegetarian friends