Do cats and dogs actually feel affection when you treat them right or is it really just an instinct for “more food and drink” etc?
I don’t think I’ve ever seen dogs, cats and other domestic animals smile because they’re happy and show love to their owners for treating them right.
Yeah I see memes but those are either photoshopped or snapped at the perfect moment to make it look like they’re smiling.
My cats eat a diet almost entirely of delicious, delicious meat.
None of it is made of cats.
Nor do I eat cat meat.
There’s nothing wrong with being omnivorous as long as you’re ethical about it.
There’s also nothing wrong with veganism as long as you’re ethical about it.
I draw the line at cannibalism, though. Way too easy to spread human pathogens that way.
What? You don’t eat cats, okay. But what’s the point?
There is nothing wrong with being an omnivore lol. Sure, it’s just what you are. Does being an omnivore mean you HAVE TO eat meat or do you think that the scientific consensus might be that we don’t have to?
And if we don’t have to, what’s the main reason why you still eat it? Taste? Personal pleasure? Do you think that this is a good justification for harming other individuals?
You can’t be ethical about “killing individuals that don’t want to die for trivial reasons like taste pleasure” which might sound a bit overexaggerated at first, however if you look it up and find out that you don’t have to eat any meat, you’ll see that it’s exactly that. It’s not ethical.
Test if by changing the situation while you keep the logic. Tell me where personal sensory pleasure is a legit justification to bring harm or death upon individuals
An omnivore is predisposed to eat anything. Absent synthetic food processing? Yes, an omnivore must eat both meat and plants.
Humans are the only species (that we know of) who chooses whether or not to eat something based on a system of ethics. But at the same time, most of the world doesn’t have the privilege to decide whether or not to eat only specific things. In parts of the world, if you don’t eat meat, you don’t eat. In other parts of the world, if you don’t eat plants, you don’t eat. It’s simply nature.
I don’t criticize your reasons for not eating meat. And I don’t criticize your perspectives and responses to me, because I understand your viewpoint. But if you think your arguments are novel to me, you’re wrong. And if you think I eat meat only for flavor, you’re also wrong.
All that said, Americans do eat way too much meat. We need to reduce the amount of animal protein we take in - not because of ethics, but because it’s unhealthy to overindulge. Similarly, we need to reduce the amount of sugar we take in.
Reality is complicated. I don’t deal in absolutes.
Only a sith deals in absolutes.
Or an engineer.
No. That is just plain wrong. By the same logic, you are predisposed to rape when you have a penis. Saying that an omnivore must eat both (meat and plants) is unscientific. I gave you the hint that there is something like scientific consensus about this topic, but you still refuse to open your mind about this topic and look for some facts. That’s sad
Why do you talk about the world now? Did I say everybody has to eat plant based? No. I just pointed out how it’s unethical to pay for innocent beings to suffer and die when the only reason you have is “I like meat, it tastes good” (while there are definitly thousand plant based dishes with the same taste experience available, easily)
Appeal to nature fallacy
You don’t criticize that I refuse to pay for innocent animals to suffer and die without any necessity? Why would you? Or do you state this, just so you can say “so don’t criticize my way”, because that would make no sense
I don’t care about if they’re novel to you. You fail to explain how it’s justifyable to pay for animals to suffer and die. You want to claim there is a necessity? You fail to give one
Don’t get me wrong, it’s not about you. I don’t care about you and your choices. However, you responded here saying “There’s nothing wrong with being omnivorous as long as you’re ethical about it.” which is simply absurd, so now we kind of have to go down this road.
So you can’t justify the suffering and death of these innocent animals, therefore you just pretend that there is no ethical conflict?
Reality in regard to this isn’t complicated. Go and watch dominion, then come back and tell me the reason why those animals deserve that, even though there is no actual necessity for that
No, it’s really simple. There were no absolutes in this discussion.
I’m not trying to justify anything to you, or to anyone else.
Ethics don’t exist in the world outside of humans. That’s simply a fact.
And many different human ethical systems exist. If you believe that eating animals is always unethical, that is your ethic. If that means you believe I am unethical, then that viewpoint is valid within your system of ethics.
It’s not possible to sway somebody by contradicting their own ethics; the only way to change a person’s ethics is to appeal to them by showing the commonalities between belief systems, then showing them the benefits of certain variations that you believe.
Neither you nor I like animal suffering. The difference is, I’ve seen plenty of animals lead relaxed, happy lives, that end painlessly before the animal is turned into meat. I understand that the notion repulses you.
I’ve also seen plenty of “free” animals who’ve led short, painful unhappy lives. I’m sure you and I can both agree that this is not good. And if the animal led a short, painful, unhappy life in captivity directly because it was destined to be food? That’s an inherently bad thing.
I’m not criticizing your viewpoint, and I’m not trying to justify my viewpoint to you. But my viewpoint exists, and many people hold it.
Sorry, but that is just a very poor try of avoiding the argument. What you say here is basically true, because if I move to other countries, I can do bad things that are under their umbrella of “local ethics”. Like moving somewhere east where women are still seen as property and where I can abuse them.
Does that mean that we cannot challange “local ethics”? No. You can challange any ethical standpoint. And you should.
But you avoid the core argument by stating empty phrases like the one above :/
In this case I can simply use logic. Logic shows that there is no justification for the suffering and deaths of all these innocent animals as long as there is no necessity for that. Don’t believe me? Try to justificate it right now :)
I grew up with many animals that all had to die. I saw how they died, with pain and without pain. But the difference is that, even though I was tought that this “is OK”, I challanged this belief system, which is quite easy. And the main difference between me and other people is that I accept if I’m wrong, I do admit that and, after this first step, I change things.
I saw that it’s wrong to just consume and not give a fuck about the environment. That’s why I’m changing a lot even though it’s highly uncomfortable at times.
I saw that it’s wrong to judge people. So I stopped that
I saw that it’s wrong to pay for animals to suffer and die, when there is no necessity to do so. That’s why I started a vegan lifestyle
You kind of explained your viewpoint, but you didn’t say anything constructive in regard to the arguments. So it’s nice that you try to explain your viewpoint, that’s something I really appriciate, but you should atleast try to state some arguments to the arguments that have been told. Right?
If you kill a sentient being for pleasure against its will, there is nothing that could make it ethical.
Downvoting this guy for stating this simple fact won’t change the fact.
It’s like throwing a middle finge at a person in a discussion where the other person tells you a simple truth that you just don’t like. You’d look like a fool. So why do it here? It’s infantil. Just go into a nice discussion
Tangential, agenda-ridden, off-topic.
Whats your standpoint on a vegetarian diet?
“I’m not vegan because I love animals. I’m vegan because I hate plants.”
-SMBC, I think
That statement is untrue, because many different sets of ethics disagree with you.