They’re like giant dogs.
deleted by creator
Every time I see this cow picture, I’m always reminded of Pink Floyd.
Mmm. Delicious giant dogs
Hehe, we like meat so much that we’re going to ignore the fact that it destroys the environment and continue farming and eating it like there is still a billion of us on this planet. Also, the prices must be low but i don’t care that living beings are raised in hellish conditions for our convenience. We made it illegal to record those conditions so we don’t have to look at them. Meat delicious, I deserve it three meals a day because look at my prosperity.
Yeah. It’s the usual nonsense habits of people that they will defend to their dying breath
Thats what you get when you base your personality on what you eat.
I know it’s a cliché, but say this on Reddit and you’ll be downvoted into oblivion. Tried it many times. Criticize meat and seemingly reasonable people suddenly start making the same circular arguments they usually mock.
People consider themselves good people and don’t like thinking about the consequences of their actions.
Same happens when you point out that children lose their limbs for our smartphones. People aren’t going to stop using their smartphones, aren’t going to consider themselves bad people, and so will rationalize however they can.
For anyone interested, here is a relevant documentary about how Earth is experiencing a sixth mass extinction event because of our actions like you mentioned.
Why does that cow have 3 legs?
They’ve already started eating her 😞
It is definitely behind the other. You can see it if you look closely.
~One is probably behind the other leg~
That’s a dairy cow; you can eat that one without killing it.
deleted by creator
Milked it so hard a leg was sucked inside!
Extra protein
Okay that caught me off guard and made me fucking laugh.
the meat industry put out decades of propaganda during the great depression & world wars to convince the western world to buy meat & dairy. truth is, humans have lived off plant based diets for millennia. ending factory farming is one of the easiest ways to combat climate change & corporations
- Humans have also been eating meat for millennia. We’re omnivores, and have always been opportunistic about what we eat
- Individuals cutting down their personal meat consumption won’t stop factory farming, but ending subsidies that make that practice highly profitable might
The only evolutionary reason humans have advanced brains is because of nutrient rich meat.
FYI that study has been successfully debunked shortly after it was written.
There are more recent claims of doubt against more meat = large brain though.
The fact still is that both meat and animal milk were a huge impact in early homo life.
It’s entirely possible that our capacity of language and advanced learning stems from non dietary sources.
How does beef taste anyway? I have resolved to never eat it because of my religious upbringing, although I am an atheist now. How does it taste?
The closest analogy that I have found is Ostrich, though that tastes of beef and liver. Venison, aka deer, is much like beef, but with almost no fat, so you have to mix it with a fatty meat to use it as beef, even then there’s a richer “beefyness” to the end result.
I wish I had tried an antelope steak, when I had the ability to do so, I suspect that would be closer to beef in taste and fat content upon further research.
Source: over 20 years as a chef.
Why don’t we have a cooking community here?
I have eaten deer, It was ok! I prefer chicken tbh, but yeah to each our own. Thank you for this! I can trust your because of the sauce lol
I aint got any way of describing it, good I guess. Its my prefered meat of choice if that gives you any idea. Also what relgion were you raised in? Im gonna guess Hindu.
Im gonna guess Hindu
yes, I was raised Hindu
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
It’s overrated in my opinion. It’s tasty but not mind blowing in any way like the internet claims. I’ve had better tasting fried chicken to be honest.
deleted by creator
go away temptation. gooo…
Just kidding, if I feel like I am missing something, I might give it a go, But, I doubt if I will
deleted by creator
It’s the best meat imo. Way better than pork and sheep
I cannot describe the taste.
Eat some well barbequed beef and a wave of regret will wash over you, and you will cry for having denied it to yourself for all these years.
Medium rare beef steaks are hyped up, but it frankly is actually an acquired taste. I’ve eaten hot dogs I liked better.
This mfing hot dog comment
deleted by creator
Beef is best when slow cooked for a long time.
Also, both bratwurst and bacon wrapped cheese filled hot dogs are understated compared to steak.
Carnism is one hell of a drug. Hope you can escape it soon OP. Good luck.
Same for all the others here still trapped in the beliefs of carnism.
“Carnism” that’s the difference between vegans and non-vegans.
Only vegans view their diet as a lifestyle and shit on everyone else who isn’t vegan. We’re not “carnists” we don’t give a fuck really except that we hate vegans. Why? Because you lot are the pushiest, most openly judgemental, arrogant pieces of shit to walk the earth.
deleted by creator
Carnism is simply a name of the belief system. For a long time it didn’t have a name, which is something that psychologically helps oppressors not question their own actions.
So it was given a name to help point out that it is, in fact, a belief system. The belief that eating animals and their secretions is normal, natural, and necessary.
Oh boy, another dogshit kill animals hehe meme. Very funny maymay community. Psuedoprogressive animal abusers the lot of ya. There is not enough resources on Earth to quench your never ending demand for bodies. Just have ten trillion kids who all definitely have the opportunity to eat just as many animals as you do! Primitive zero brain cell fools. I’d throw you all out of Athens.
internet is filled with echo chambers who cant make ethical decisions of their own. veganism gets downvoted because it makes people question their morality & they have to make the effort of buying plant-based options. god forbid they eat food without cholesterol
More than half of America lives paycheck to paycheck. Vegan options are more expensive. Until you fix the economic crisis and solve poverty you really can’t enforce veganism.
This isn’t even getting into the fact that vegan options are literally nonexistent in many places.
Oh but you don’t care about that because you only care about veganism because it allows you to feel morally superior to others.
deleted by creator
Veganism gets downvoted for the same reason any other fanaticism gets downvoted: the vocal minority that talks about it does so with a hoiler-than-thou attitude, much like you are doing right now.
The people who want me to stop punching nonconsenting people in the face unprovoked sure are smug about not punching nonconsenting people in the face unprovoked. They should stop telling me what to do. Live and let live. I am very intelligent. An enlightened centrist you might say! ☝️🤓
That’s a false equivalence.
The vast majority of the Western world does not consider farm animals to have the same rights as humans or pets. Equating the ethics of eating meat and battery is really reaching for an example to make me look stupid.
But hey, if we’re playing that game, here’s some examples that demonstrate unnecessary and annoying proselytizing:
The people who want me to {blank} sure are smug about how they {blank}. They should keep telling me how their lifestyle is better. My opinion isn’t as important as theirs. I am very happy to be talked down upon. An enlightened listener, you might say! ☝️🤓
- Drive a Tesla
- Drink Pepsi instead of Coke
- Try homeopathy
- Wear Versace
- Own a PlayStation instead of Xbox
- Cook with propane instead of charcoal
On the basis of their being conscious feeling thinking emotional beings I assert that there is no moral difference between violating the bodily autonomy of a non-human animal and a human. Given a no alternative hypothetical it’s fair to give preference for who to spare, but this is not the same as willful unnecessary violence and killing.
If it’s false equivalency, demonstrate why it is permissible to kill non humans but not even permissible to punch humans in the face. What is the morally relevant difference? If you could apply that difference to a human, would you then justify doing to them all the things we do to animals?
Your examples don’t have victims, this one does.
See but you’re assuming that we agree to your axiomatic premise that there is no moral difference between the two.
We reject your premise. Prove there’s no difference.
You don’t think animals are conscious? Or do you not care that they are conscious?
From the perspective of cultural relativism.*
Insofar as our laws view animals, we do not afford them the same considerations or rights as we do our own species. I can’t speak for Europe, but in the legal systems of North American countries, animals are granted their own distinct protections separate from the protections given to entities with the designation of personhood (i.e. humans or service animals).
For instance, with permits and barring species that are protected for conservation reasons, humans are allowed to hunt and kill animals for both sport and sustenance. In such cases, animals do not consent to their hunting.
However, that does not mean that it is okay to hurt animals without cause. There are animal cruelty laws that cover unjustified and inhumane treatment of wild and pet animals.
If it is legal to kill animals but illegal to be “cruel” to them, then the act of killing an animal is not, in itself, cruelty. If it was, then animal cruelty would unconditionally occur during the process of hunting, making the latter illegal.
With these four points, and keeping in mind that laws are a reflection of the collective beliefs of society, we see that:
- Harming humans is viewed as a different act than harming animals, and is not generally permissible.
- Killing animals is permissible.
- Inflicting intentional cruelty on animals is not permissible.
- (2) is not precluded by (3).
By (1) and that punching a human in the face is an act of harming them (and also illegal), I conclude that it is not morally permissible to punch humans in the face.
By (2) and (4), I conclude that it is morally permissible to kill non-human animals.
Just in case anyone thinks relativism is a cop-out answer because laws were written in the past and may not be reflective of society’s current moral views, I ask you to consider this:
Laws are constantly changed to align with updated beliefs. Canada amended its laws to consider gender identity a protected class, which reflects the contemporary belief that transgender individuals deserve equality and freedom from being discriminated against. If society cared about not killing animals, hunting for sport would be unconditionally outlawed.
Edit 1: I meant cultural relativism. Non-Western cultures have different (and in some cases, more progressive) views on animal rights.
Foundationally we already disagree, as I’m a moral objectivist. To assert moral subjectivity is to assert that moral progress does not exist. But with your edit your argument is actually now even worse IMO, because instead of focusing on a moral relativist position you’re now basically saying morality=culture/law. i.e., since you have no say in what another society does without disrupting their agreed practice, all their actions are permissible. Bigotry is permissible. Slavery is permissible, hangings are permissible, genocide is permissible, etc, just so long as it simultaneously does not occur within proximity to you and rejects your preference. I think you are tolerant of intolerance.
Just a terrible attempt at trolling.
Yeah dude idk how to tell you this but some people actually do have an interest in a sustainable planet and individual’s bodily autonomy. Idc if these are foreign ideas to you. OP’s post itself is the trolling. If y’all don’t want reactionary responses, dont troll this shit to the top post for the last six hours. You’ve all demonstrated very clearly how little you care about anything outside of your own momentary pleasure.
You are as pathetic as your trolling attempts. Please shut up.
Edit: fuck it, I realise that engaging you. Just gonna block you and move on. Have a nice day.
“please shut up!”
-the response of a child when faced with a situation that makes them uncomfortable
“please shut up!” // -the response of a child when faced with a situation that makes them uncomfortable
“Shut up” is also the sensible answer of adults when Christian zealots, nationalists and racists soapbox their shit.
Animal abuser
Thousands of animals are killed in every field of vegetables. Rodents, birds, insects. It’s a fucking bloodbath. Don’t pretend you are innocent.
Zero sum game that requires my own death to achieve - seems a reasonable request compared to a request to not participate in the forcible birthing of billions of animals into exploitative confinement until they are killed at our convenience for eternity, or the unecessary trawling of trillions of them.
Or we can seek to achieve what is possible, and work out what isn’t over time. You describe a technical problem. That aside can you even empirically prove that more animals die in agricultural fields than in nature? I’m all in favor of reducing those deaths but is it actually any worse than if we let the existing fields reforest? I don’t see your point as analogous to my own concerns.
And 1.3 million people are killed by cars every year. It’s a fucking bloodbath. So driving a car is similar to intentionally murdering people, of course. Don’t pretend you are innocent if you drive a car.
No. That’s not what I was saying. I’m saying that when a cow dies it’s one death. When a field of the same volume in terms of nutrition is harvested it’s many deaths.
Beef is worse in the long run for the water and energy use, but not in terms of slaughter.
deleted by creator
Well good for you. Harr harr harr, what a knee slapper.
Continue to ignore the cognitive dissonance of the murder of a sentient being that is “cute” and “cool” so you can pleasure yourself.
Hopefully people will see this for what it is one day. It’s a crime. Not long ago men joked to themselves about how beautiful and nice women were before they raped them. Slaves weren’t considered human at one point.
I’m not gonna get too high on my horse, because I used to eat meat, but at least had the dignity to not proudly proclaim my stupid choice to assuage the nagging doubt underneath.
deleted by creator
Appeal to thousands of years of history… which is filled with murder, rape, war, enslavement, and endless other crimes. We are capable of evolving as a species.
deleted by creator
Oh look, it’s you, the same asshole that also advocates for violence and censorship of people you disagree with.
deleted by creator
I can butcher it if she wants help. It shouldn’t be too different from pigs.
(It’s really precious though. Think on how many kilos of meat it has!)
funny how serial killers get upvoted when it’s non-human animals getting killed
As I said in the other reply, you got to choose between the serious and memes-friendly reply. You had ~3h to do so, and you’re showing activity, so you picked neither = both.
c/memes friendly answer: Serial killer? Come on, I don’t put ketchup on pizza, sauce on ribs or hard cheese on seafood!
Serious answer. Spoilers for the sake of other users.
First off. I will cut you some slack, but keep in mind that “serial killer” is generally understood as “one who periodically kills humans”, so what you’re doing is libel. Others might not cut you the same slack, so get a bit more insightful with your insults.
Secondly. I also understand that “I shouldn’t soapbox in a meme comm” is a bit too complex of an idea for nationalists, vegans, racists, and Christian zealots. And given that you belong to at least one of those groups, this should be really hard for you, o poor thing.
Final and more importantly:
You wouldn’t call a jaguar piercing the necks of capybaras “serial killing”, even if they periodically do so. Or orcas hunting seals, even if they can get really “playful” (cruel) towards their prey, also periodically. Or chickens eating bugs alive, so they die either crushed or dissolved in hydrochloric acid, even if they don’t need it to survive. Or chimps hunting termites and teaching their children how to do so, even if there’s a cultural factor in this.
And yet you refer to a human being killing a member of another species [ipsis ungulis] “serial killer” Why, even if by the above we know that you don’t give a fuck about periodicity, cruelty, necessity, or culture? Why?
Because you want to pretend that you’re part of a very, very special snowflake species, “holier and above all those filthy irrationals”, above them. As if you were better, more moral, more deserving of The Kingdom of God than those “poor things”.
Cut off the bullshit. You and me are catarrhines with a weird hair pattern. We are animals; acknowledge you as such, instead of wallowing in wishful belief. The morality behind our acts is the same as the morality of the same acts of other species. If eating flesh is immoral for us, so is for both other omnivorous species and the carnivorous ones. You can claim that eating flesh is moral, or immoral, but you need to do it for both sides.
If you claim that it’s immoral, go grab your shotgun and kill every fucking jaguar, orca, chimp, and chicken out there. (Except battery farm chickens, those cause less death of precious animals than you’d like to admit.) Or even better, go ramble at the jaguar, he’ll totally listen to you and stop eating capybaras. (He’ll probably eat something dumber than a capybara then. You.)
If you claim that it’s moral, I rest my case.
You’re also putting animal lifes in a weird altar over the lives of everything else. Every fucking living thing thrives off the death of something else; even plants, bacteria and funghi. Why is this weird altar even there? Because you’re an animal and put your own group over the others, in detriment of those.
I’ll pre-emptively rebuke some really stupid counter-arguments that you perhaps might utter:
- Any reasoning trying to pretend that humans are “speshul”, such as intelligence - refer the paragraph starting with “Cut off”.
- “Dis is appoeal to narurr! [nature]” - nope. I’m highlighting that your standards are arbitrary and, if consistently applied, would go completely against what you probably claim to defend (“poor crirrurrs” [critters])
- Something about tone - deal with it. You brought this to yourself.
- “haha didn’t read lmao XD lol” - can’t have your precious, oh precious feelings ( = garbage) being broken, right?
- “B-but the environment!” - the issue with continued sustainability of Earth to keep human life is not the fact that we eat meat. It’s the 1% hoarding resources and making sure that we exploit the shit out of the environment so they can count coins.
- “this dunt maek sense i dun unrurrstand” - it does make sense even if you pretend that it doesn’t.
Get off your high horse.
Note for other vegans that might be reading this, before some assumer starts whining and becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: I’m not chewing on this moron because it’s a vegan, but because it showed itself consistently dumb across the thread.
TL;DR but jaguars dont have moral agency. People do.
TL;DR
Fourth bullet point.
but jaguars dont have moral agency. People do
First bullet point.
After reading that, I’m curious about your stance on ethics.
A utilitarian could argue that—even if their lives were fleeting and miserable—the factory-farmed animals would otherwise not exist were it not for their use as livestock. Would it be less ethical to have prevented their existence entirely?
[A] The existence of these animals contributes to the net quantity of happiness in our world. Even if it’s very little on an individual scale, it’s a significant amount as a whole. Wouldn’t it, therefore, be better that they do exist, even in such conditions?
[B] Does a livestock animal’s life not have a value in itself? Even if its life was objectively awful, it was given the opportunity to experience it. Would it be more cruel to—as argued by pro-life individuals—deny it the chance to experience life, no matter how such a life turned out in the end?
[C] Relatively speaking, perhaps the animal did not have such a miserable life as we imagined. From the perspective of an outsider, growing up in a cage sucks. But, maybe an animal would enjoy being constantly given access to food and water for no effort. We can generalize based on scientific data, but much like humans, there could be lazy animals that enjoy the lifestyle.
Sorry for the huge wall of text. It’s a bit of a complex theme.
At its core I think that my ethic stance is best described as anti-realism. There’s no intrinsic value; value is assigned by the subject. In turn, each individual (incl. me) assigns values due to a bunch of different factors: defending one’s own interests, instinct (kin selection), culture/ideology, Realpolitik, or even on a whim.
Thus moral premises (or their absence - moral nihilism) are individual and arbitrary. I personally picked “weighted selfishness” and kin selection as two of mine. This leads to some sort of “rank”, like: myself > my close relatives > other humans > other primates > other vertebrates > other animals > other living beings. Some individuals are sub-ranked higher due to their effect on individuals on higher ranks (e.g. someone’s pet dog is above a stray dog, my lemon tree is above other non-animal living beings, etc.)
Beyond that it works like a “weighted utilitarianism” where life, general well-being and happiness of a higher category are more important than the ones of lower categories. It works symmetrically though - for example a jaguar hunting a human being is still moral, even if the jaguar was somehow intelligent. (And so is the self-defence of the potential human. Or of a pig against a human.)
Based on that: battery farm is for me less moral than free range, but still within acceptable morality - because it benefits beings high in my priority (humans) by a lot.
Animal lives matter a bit. Animals closer to us matter more. I’m not sure however if their simple existence has a positive “happiness” value, it’s just referring to the life itself.
Thank you for your feedback, PETA.
I can give you a serious answer or one suitable for a memes community. Which one shall you pick? [EDIT: picking neither will yield you both.]
deleted by creator
I don’t get it, could you explain?
deleted by creator
