User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-03-22 at 8:17 PM UTC
-
2018-03-22 at 8:20 PM UTCHow about displacing people from their homes?
-
2018-03-22 at 8:25 PM UTCZanick, in addition to Obbe's points, how do you feel about the fact that all the plants you eat come directly from the brutal evisceration of hundreds of thousands animals in the process of planting, growing and harvesting them?
Little bunnies get brutally mutilated by combine harvesters by the thousands. Let's not even talk about the millions of insects and worms and other creatures murdered in the whole cycle of planting and growing crops successfully. We deliver neurotoxins to bees and other insects to protect our plants all the time, and they die in what could only be described as horrible agony.
Do you not think that insects feel pain? How about those animals who get destroyed in the process? -
2018-03-22 at 9:50 PM UTC
-
2018-03-22 at 10 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Depends on the situation. I've never killed anyone and don't think I ever will need to, but I'm sure you could imagine a situation where it would be the right thing to do.
Would it be a moral negative to contribute to the death and/or displacement of a few people because it enables you to experience pleasure for about 1 hour? -
2018-03-22 at 10:01 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-03-22 at 10:06 PM UTC
-
2018-03-22 at 10:08 PM UTC
-
2018-03-22 at 10:16 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe I don't think I could enjoy my own life after doing such a thing.
I'm going to take that as "yeah, that's a moral negative".
First, let's talk descriptive claims about livestock production: it is the largest and absolute worst contributor towards climate change. The environmental impact of the meat industry is massive. The simple fact is that it's not really so much the factories or the mines or the power plants that are causing the ice caps to melt. It's meat production.
http://science.time.com/2013/12/16/the-triple-whopper-environmental-impact-of-global-meat-production/
Long term, as global temperatures rise, it might even lead to the destruction of our own food supplies and the end of humanity as we know it.
Continuing animal agriculture is the single worst thing we can possibly do to humans of the future. It will cause death and displacement, not of a few people but of millions, if not eventually billions. This is not some butterfly effect bullshit that is 10000 degrees of separation from our actions.
To continue to eat meat would thus be a moral wrong for humanity in general, and probably you in specific. -
2018-03-22 at 10:17 PM UTCDo you object to anything in that post?
-
2018-03-22 at 10:19 PM UTC
-
2018-03-22 at 10:30 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jeremus I'm going to take that as "yeah, that's a moral negative".
First, let's talk descriptive claims about livestock production: it is the largest and absolute worst contributor towards climate change. The environmental impact of the meat industry is massive. The simple fact is that it's not really so much the factories or the mines or the power plants that are causing the ice caps to melt. It's meat production.
http://science.time.com/2013/12/16/the-triple-whopper-environmental-impact-of-global-meat-production/
Long term, as global temperatures rise, it might even lead to the destruction of our own food supplies and the end of humanity as we know it.
Continuing animal agriculture is the single worst thing we can possibly do to humans of the future. It will cause death and displacement, not of a few people but of millions, if not eventually billions. This is not some butterfly effect bullshit that is 10000 degrees of separation from our actions.
To continue to eat meat would thus be a moral wrong for humanity in general, and probably you in specific.
I find this a much better argument than anything I have read in this thread so far. And I think you're right, continuing to go down this path would appear to be disastrous.
But it doesn't really make me feel like I'm doing anything wrong at all. Really it feels like the problem isn't eating meat - the problem seems to be there are too many mouths to feed, and they at currently being fed in an unsustainable way. -
2018-03-22 at 10:35 PM UTC
-
2018-03-22 at 10:38 PM UTC
-
2018-03-22 at 10:54 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jeremus I'm going to take that as "yeah, that's a moral negative".
First, let's talk descriptive claims about livestock production: it is the largest and absolute worst contributor towards climate change. The environmental impact of the meat industry is massive. The simple fact is that it's not really so much the factories or the mines or the power plants that are causing the ice caps to melt. It's meat production.
http://science.time.com/2013/12/16/the-triple-whopper-environmental-impact-of-global-meat-production/
Long term, as global temperatures rise, it might even lead to the destruction of our own food supplies and the end of humanity as we know it.
Continuing animal agriculture is the single worst thing we can possibly do to humans of the future. It will cause death and displacement, not of a few people but of millions, if not eventually billions. This is not some butterfly effect bullshit that is 10000 degrees of separation from our actions.
To continue to eat meat would thus be a moral wrong for humanity in general, and probably you in specific.
thats adorable how they manipulate those percentages-figures to make it look like ruminants are some sort of catastrophe waiting to happen.
millions of tons of greenhouse gasses from livestock, they say.
they dont mention how many billions of tons of greenhouse gasses are released from fossil-fuel wastage. (not usage)
pretty much the only thing i brought out of that is that the niggers in africa shouldnt be allowed to raise livestock
its also adorable how they dont mention the entire purpose of ruminants is to consume a food item that is not in competition with a human food item. -
2018-03-22 at 11:04 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jeremus I'm going to take that as "yeah, that's a moral negative".
First, let's talk descriptive claims about livestock production: it is the largest and absolute worst contributor towards climate change. The environmental impact of the meat industry is massive. The simple fact is that it's not really so much the factories or the mines or the power plants that are causing the ice caps to melt. It's meat production.
http://science.time.com/2013/12/16/the-triple-whopper-environmental-impact-of-global-meat-production/
Long term, as global temperatures rise, it might even lead to the destruction of our own food supplies and the end of humanity as we know it.
Continuing animal agriculture is the single worst thing we can possibly do to humans of the future. It will cause death and displacement, not of a few people but of millions, if not eventually billions. This is not some butterfly effect bullshit that is 10000 degrees of separation from our actions.
To continue to eat meat would thus be a moral wrong for humanity in general, and probably you in specific.
Mmmm, meat! -
2018-03-22 at 11:31 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe I find this a much better argument than anything I have read in this thread so far. And I think you're right, continuing to go down this path would appear to be disastrous.
But it doesn't really make me feel like I'm doing anything wrong at all. Really it feels like the problem isn't eating meat - the problem seems to be there are too many mouths to feed, and they at currently being fed in an unsustainable way.
That's not the problem at all. We already have more than enough food to feed literally everyone on earth. In fact, since livestock production is such an insanely land, energy, nutrient and water inefficient process (the amount of shit we put in vs the calories out is incredibly bad), halting meat production and replacing it with food crops and modern farming techniques, not only could we feed everyone but we'd actually be able to feed them like kings, remove the ENORMOUS environmental impact of livestock farming, and a lot of the saved resources could be redirected to benefiting people's lives in other ways.
Now I will grant that it is a societal problem; if you stopped eating meat tomorrow, it wouldn't make an ounce of difference in the global meat industry. But as a society, it's hard to argue that we should stop eating meat, and such societal action would necessarily require you to participate in it. -
2018-03-22 at 11:47 PM UTCYour post reminded me of when I worked at a grocery store and would see 2 or 3 garbage bags of hot, prepared food be thrown out into a compactor. Could've fed a family for days. It was fucking disgusting. Sometimes I would eat some chicken there in the back because I felt bad just throwing it all out. They wouldn't let the employees take it home either. Or donate it. Companies always use the liability excuse, but all you need is a disclaimer signed and you're fucking good.
-
2018-03-23 at 4:37 AM UTC
Originally posted by Jeremus I interact with every distinct object differently, and I interact with every distinct class of object differently. If they were all the same object or class of object, I would react the same way. But they aren't.
I started replying to you, despite it being obvious you were trolling, because I thought you had a well formed position and I was high. I'm no longer high and this is just you being evasive.Be honest, how much consideration do you give ants?
Little but some. Ants are very simple animals, their capacity for experiencing suffering seems to be much lower than more neurologically complex animals. -
2018-03-23 at 4:55 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny I started replying to you, despite it being obvious you were trolling, because I thought you had a well formed position and I was high. I'm no longer high and this is just you being evasive.
Little but some. Ants are very simple animals, their capacity for experiencing suffering seems to be much lower than more neurologically complex animals.
Ants are not animals you fokakn retard hahahahaa
theyre a form of lichen
