Lmao. Okay. This outrage thing is just getting out of control. Don’t these people have anything useful to worry about?
No that’s the whole point of outrage culture, to keep you outraged about things that don’t matter so you take it up the ass on the things that do since no one complains about those
No. These people live off their wealthy parents and bored to death, because they’re useless shits with only hobby of theirs is being offended online by everything.
People wouldn’t care nearly as much if he said this while standing over a pond full of fish, but since they’re cute, fuzzy lambs, it’s Crossing The Line.
To be fair, fish brains are much further removed than other mammals.
Mammals have memories and can love. They have opinions and personalities.
The distinction that I would better is how up in arms some people get at the idea of eating dogs or cats but other mammals are perfectly fine.
Fish usually have opinions and personalities. Not sure about love, though.
Fish definitely have memories. They definitely learn who feeds them. Ask any observant aquarium owner.
It’s ok to eat fish cause they don’t have any feelings
If you’re okay with eating meat, you should also be okay with how it gets to your plate. Seems only fair.
I’ll happily go on a mass murder of animals if I can continue eating meat.
removed by mod
I asked my hamburger but it didn’t respond.
cows don’t seem very communicative whether they’re in a pasture or a patty.
Then you’re not listening very well. You can understand a lot from a cow, both in the pasture and from the patty.
this outlandish claim came with no evidence, and will be dismissed with the same amount of evidence.
Ok. I will take your poor communication claim that has no evidence and dismiss it.
Grew up on a farm. Most of our meat, except pork, was home grown.
Named, raised, and loved what was on my plate. Helped butcher plenty of it myself. Fucking delicious
Well, not everyone is born with the same amount of empathy.
You should know how it happens.
- I know, still eat.
You should do it manually.
- I did, still eat.
Y-You monster!
Yeah, this Internet world is making the global society way more apathetic than before, people don’t give a flying fuck about the people living in the building next to theirs, you think they will care about corpse parts of animals they didn’t even know? Nah.
deleted by creator
Wow you’re so cool
damn joker chill
I mean, yeah… Lambs are baby animals. Of course they are fluffy and cute.
Id feel pretty weird eating cute, baby animals, so I don’t. I do get why people don’t like this situation. It feels like people are being obtuse in this thread pretending to be flummoxed by all this.
but they are yummy.
And fluffy
Where do they think meat comes from?
Their mom buys it for them
From the store, duh!
deleted by creator
and also shows a disregard for where your food comes from
I don’t think you can acknowledge where your food is coming from anymore than this.
Strikes me as completely the opposite. He’s going to the source overseeing the whole process. And obviously it’s going to be prepared with the utmost care and turned into a world class dish. Compared to Joe Schmo torching a factory farmed steak, it seems a lot more respectful
Yeah I mean it makes me sad (as a veg) but is this out of character or really “wrong” to a meat eater? Like, that animal is exactly what you find to be very tasty and have no problem eating. What’s wrong with this given that ethical framework? If anything, he’s just being earnest lol
e: phrasing
deleted by creator
Not a bad take.
Anyone who thinks that’s all they are is either horribly desensitized or hasn’t spent any real time around farm animals.
I know lots of farmers who think exactly that. Stop projecting your self-righteous sense of morality on others.
Unless you’re going to invoke some actual philosophy, your opinion is just as moot as anyone else’s.
deleted by creator
Gordon Ramsay absolutely is not sheltered. He has killed and harvested his own animals many times.
As for hunters not doing this, I think you don’t know many hunters. I’m a hunter, have many hunter friends, and talk hunting with people any chance I get. I’ve never met a hunter who wouldn’t be ok with this(or even do it themselves). Granted this is anecdotal evidence from both of us, but still.
Also, some people genuinely don’t care about the animals we raise specifically for food, that’s all they are to them (I fall into this group). I see their lives as ours, they exist solely to feed us. That doesn’t mean I think they should have shitty living conditions until their time comes, they should be able to enjoy what little life they have.
deleted by creator
I never said it was made up, just that neither of our evidence is based on much.
As for being cringey? Call it what you want, but those specific animals literally only exist because they’re delicious, and we want to eat them. It doesn’t matter if you don’t like it, it’s fact.
Animals are here for us to enjoy. The exact meaning of that is up to each individual on this earth.
deleted by creator
Nothing left to contribute? Guess the conversation is over then.
deleted by creator
Tbh, you’re both kinda touchy.
No, your anecdotal experiences are different, so they shouldn’t be used as a basis to influence or judge others.
deleted by creator
Was this anecdote included to justify the judgement?
Alternatively, every hunter and farmer I know who hasn’t become fully disassociated (the majority of them) respects the animals they eat too much to do something like this.
I’m not saying you’re wrong for judging others btw- just that in light of two equally anecdotal and contrasting experiences, the anecdotal evidence should not be included.
Oh no the poor animal is going to get its feelings hurt before getting slaughtered 😢
You fucking donkey
Is this a thing he says? Only place I’ve heard that remark was in The Menu.
https://youtu.be/5N9p-OrBtsE?si=rHVFwBnzhH29aXgi
It’s a famous thing he says, it’s also a big meme.
I don’t see anything wrong with this
Isn’t this fake?
People’s perspectives on things are weird. I’m totally fine with vegans, vegetarians, meat eaters, whoever. But when someone who eats meat is excited because they think meat tastes good… why did you think they eat it??? Obviously they think it’s yummy, and obviously, to a certain degree, they see animals as a source of that. If you want to fight against that fine, but don’t act surprised that it exists.
Its considered disrespectful.
The moral take of meat eating is that we respect the animals we kill to survive, and that we dont waste or belittle the animal just because its food.
This is the reason local farms are “more ethical” than commercial farming, because theyre more likely to treat the animal with respect.
Ramsey here is getting flack cause its kinda disrespectful to the living thing he is going to eat.
I don’t think the animal was aware of the mockery
No one said it was?
Ok so what’s the problem? No victim, no crime.
You arent trying to not hurt the lambs feelings.
You respect the animal because that respect is what keeps you from forgeting that the lamb is still a living, thinking, feeling animal even when its going to become food.
When you respect your livestock, you feed them well, keep them groomed, treat them when sick, and keep them reasonably happy. You cant abuse your animals when you respect them.
Obviously this doesnt mean ramsay is an animal abuser. Im sure he just thinks its a funny joke. In the right contexts, it usually is.
I don’t think he can say anything that is comparable in disrespect to what happens in the average slaughterhouse (bad compared to ethically sourced meat? Sure, you could argue that)
Ok, and? You dont respect someone by finding the person who respects them the least and setting your bar 1 notch above that.
Respect is a human concept. It isn’t in nature and it’s just to make people like you feel better about the fact that life means you gotta kill something to keep living. At least food is delicious.
The respect isnt to soothe the animals feelings.
The respect is to make sure you dont forget that the animal is also alive and feeling, and you still need to treat it well even though it will become food.
Its to keep forward in your mind that animal abuse is still abuse, even if the animal is meant for your dinner.
Respect is, also, abundant in nature. For starters, you and I arent aliens. But respect is an almost required aspect of most social species communal interactions. Corvids, other primates, snakes in heat, bees, etc.
No, we eat everyone because they are TASTY! What Gordon is doing is AWESOME! I do the same every time I see any animal. ALL ANIMALS ARE FOOD!!!
Lots of people don’t really understand where meat comes from. They understand the concept that an animal has to die, but they prefer their meat comming out of a plastic package.
Example: we used to raise our own animals, I knew every single one by name and saw them grow up. When it was time to slaughter them we brought them to the butcher, got a carcass and the fur back. Guests could help feed the animals, feel the fluffiest pillow out of treated fur and I could tell them the name of the animal we served. However, most of them (obviously all meat eaters) could not comprehend at all, how we could slaughter and process those absolutely cute things.
I prefer to know where my meat comes from. Many people prefer not to, so they can loose appetite or get upset if they see the animal before it is brought to the butcher.
Everyone should, at least once, kill something for their meal. It makes you appreciate it, even if I still buy meat from Costco, etc.
I agree, or if they can’t handle it they shouldn’t be eating it. Distancing yourself from the killing is just mental. If you’re purchasing meat, you’re causing something to be butchered. If you can’t handle witnessing it/participating in it, you should reconsider eating it. The customer is still a participant who is willfully ignorant.
Bunnies are a good one. Also they’re easy to breed.
The meat is a bit more “stretchy” though.
deleted by creator
I don’t think ‘surprised’ is the word that really fits what is going on here. I’m a meat eater and even i think this is Unnecessary… inappropriate… in the same way that I hate idiot drivers even though I drive a car too.
but then your argument doesn’t really have any relevancy if it’s anything but pretending people are without the worldly experience you deem to have and believe we’re just over here clutching pearls over it.
People are pretty obviously protesting his behavior prior to dining/slaughter.
There’s such a thing as responsible, informed omnivores who don’t like this objectifying bone head (wonder what home life is like with Gordon) or his behavior towards something that will give it’s life to sustain us.
Gordon is an animal murderer. All carnist chefs are. And carnists in general.
Judge not etc. It’s okay to be passionate, but the world is pretty complicated rights now and living ethically isn’t easy.
I didn’t say being an animal murderer is bad. If you think animal murder isn’t okay then that’s on you.
Yeah, that’s fair. I’m definitely struggling because I think I should give up meat, but I really don’t think I can. I’ve loved meat for my whole life and it’s a huge ask, plus the vegan months I’ve tried have been horribly grueling.
I do try to only spend my money in positive ways though and boycott a lot of places I don’t agree with.
But I guess you’re right to an extent, if it’s not hard work, it’s not really a statement/commitment. Although boycotting the after eight game at Christmas for not supporting nestle was a challenge.
I don’t understand what’s gruelling about veganism. Roast potatoes, fried mushrooms, spaghetti and pasta, yummy tofu cooked in soy sauce with spices, chips, pizza, hamburgers, ramen, coffee, hot chocolate, trail mix, sandwiches, and toast are all or all can be vegan and are plenty cheap.
carnist
Sigh… Where to begin? Biology, perhaps? The human body is omnivorous meaning we can live off both plants and meat, though a normal healthy diet (outside modern replacements) requires some meat / fish. We don’t eat meat because we’re evil, we eat meat because we can and well, also should.
You can be a vegan now thanks to modern society and I applaud you if you make that choice but stop the “better than thou” act already. If modern society falls I’d like to see the vegans after about a year; they’re either dead or ex vegan.
If killing animals for food is evil then all cats, lions, dogs, and generally all predators are evil.
If you want to realistically improve the lives of farm animals, then go for laws on better treatment while they live.
we eat meat because we can
Truly the greatest reason anyone has had to do anything.
and well, also should.
Because we evolved to do it? Are you saying we should do every single thing we evolved to do? Let me just go shit in the woods and die in childbirth then I guess
If modern society falls I’d like to see the vegans after about a year
Gee fucking whiz, maybe the morality of an action depends on context and the available choices. Maybe doing unpleasant things to survive in an apocalypse is actually completely reasonable. Or maybe, just maybe, killing someone to save your own life is still bad.
If killing animals for food is evil then all cats, lions, dogs, and generally all predators are evil.
Evil is a choice. The sun isn’t evil for giving people skin cancer. Volcanoes and hurricanes aren’t evil. And neither are nonsapient animals that can’t just choose to eat meat. If you want to be treated as the equal of a cat then go shit in sand and live off mice. Or, use your big brain to actually do something good.
If you want to realistically improve the lives of farm animals, then go for laws on better treatment while they live.
Yeah, sure. Let’s start with a few simple policies to help out the animals: no milking, no forced pregnancy, no genetic engineering to make them lay eggs every day, and no killing. That should help the animals out.
I eat meat and try to reduce my consumption because I recognize industrial meat production is wasteful, causes needed suffering, and has a big ecological footprint.
Who cares about vegans if modern society fails apocalyptically? I’d rather work to prevent such an event and a huge part of the population would be doomed regardless of their diet. I salute those putting in the extra effort to be fully vegetarian/vegan even if I don’t quite agree with some of their extremist militantism.
Our efforts would likely be better placed encouraging more people to reduce their meat consumption. It’s a more realistic goal and can have a big impact.
What doesn’t outrage tiktok? Wait until they find out people who fish are generally super excited about hooking a fish.
the hypocrisy
Hypocrisy is choosing to turn a blind eye to what happens in slaughter houses and still eat meat.
This. I’ve reduced (to maybe 5%) the untrackable, likely poorly-raised and slaughtered meats, and relaxed them with ones I know or all reasonably certain have had a good life/death.
I don’t deny the random sausage at a campfire, but most of what I intentionally acquire is decently happy critters.
How do you find sources like this? I’ve always wanted to avoid the really nasty slaughterhouse, but I’ve got no idea how when I buy meat on a limited budget.
Look to farmer’s markets. Some will have meat directly available, others will have people who know people.
You’re likely to see higher prices for meat one cost of eating ethically is that I’ve had to reduce the overall amount of meat that I eat. But also, some farmer’s markets (in some locations) are state-backed, and you can get double your ‘money’ for EBT (that doesn’t really work for me, though).
removed by mod
There’s no morality in food. What the actual fuck is wrong with the world?
Cannibal time let’s go
Hey, trap us on a mountainside with no escape in the freezing cold - guess what?
Point taken, I will avoid camping trips with you.
Well, you have full permission to eat my corpse if I die first. Because it’s pretty psychotic to demand that another person die to preserve a body you don’t need anymore.
I’ve never given this much thought before, however I’d argue that once you view other humans as food, your interactions change.
If you’re stuck in a mountain and your partner breaks a leg, if you view them as a food source you’re much less inclined to provide aid. “It sure would be a shame if you died”.
viewing humans as food is essentially a prisoners dilemma - society has an agreement to not do so (similarly to how folks don’t snitch in prisoners dilemma). This encourages more mutual aid between members of society for the reason I described above.
It just takes one party who thinks it’s acceptable to eat a person before coming across hardship for the final night’s of a stranded group to be spent eying each other in suspicion.
removed by mod
It’s neither moral nor immoral to eat any of those things… “moral” is objectively not a word that holds any context whatsoever in a conversation about food…
If you would literally die before you would eat another human, you are psychologically broken. Your decision not to do that except as a last resort has nothing to do with morality whatsoever. It’s simply adherence to societal standards, rules, and personal standards.
If the neighbor’s pet is a pig or cow, it would literally be the first thing I ate if food truly became scarce enough to warrant that effort and upset. If it’s another animal, it simply follows the hierarchy of preference all humans have established for themselves. Zero morality involved.
its more moral to not eat meat.
under what ethical system?
it’s not a sealion: it’s a clarifying question.
Under literally any ethical system you choose.
Forget harm to the animal for a moment.
Breeding animals to slaughter is more water, land and time intensive than growing crops, and produces substantially fewer calories for even more land area. Breeding animals to slaughter also generates far more CO2 then crops, either from the animal directly or from transport and butchering processes.
If it’s pure calories you’re after, might I suggest Uranium? It’s pretty cheap considering what you can theoretically get out of it.
^/s
I don’t think that you Uranium contains any calories.
I don’t think you understand what calories are.
Food calories and scientific measurement calories are different. It’s literally in the first paragraph of the article.
The small calorie or gram calorie was defined as the amount of heat needed to cause the same increase in one gram of water.
My comment specifically says “pure calories”.
A calorie is the amount of heat needed to raise the temperature one kg of water by 1°C, so uranium has quite a few, hard to digest though.
Edit: I was curious so I looked it up, 1 gram of uranium has 20 billion calories
Microdosing time!
What does
/smean? Does it mean back by science? Does it mean I should do this?? Please answer quickly, I have a piece of uranium here and I’m dying to eat itYes, science has confirmed that Uranium is perfectly edible and that it’ll provide you enough energy for the rest of your life.
Wow!! Thanks
Under literally any ethical system you choose.
i don’t know of any divine command theory that says anything like that
letting a cow graze a field and killing it next year takes way less time than tilling and planting and fertilizing and watering and harvesting.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t most pastures also planted, fertilized, and watered? You’re also assuming infinite land here - I don’t know shit about farming, but the first google hit I got suggests that cows need about 1.8 acres of pasture per year.
1 cow, consuming 1.8 acres of land, produces on the scale of 0.5 to 1.4 million calories, according to this estimate
However farming produces up to 18 million calories per acre, so if you were growing potatoes you’d have 32 million calories. On the same land that produced up to 1.4 million calories via grazing cow.
However farming produces up to 18 million calories per acre, so if you were growing potatoes you’d have 32 million calories. On the same land that produced up to 1.4 million calories via grazing cow.
so? the work of lettin a cow eat what grows is still less work than planting, tending, and harvesting.
aren’t most pastures also planted, fertilized, and watered?
no. they’re grasslands, and hilly terrain or rocky soil is a common feature of land designated as pastures because of the difficulty of working the land.
if you ask a seed salesman whether you should buy his product for your pasture, he’ll try to sell it to you. but no, for the most part pasture management is very low intensity: repair fences and deter predators. these have direct analogues in raising crops though in warding off pests that would eat the crops.
You’re also assuming infinite land here
no, i’m not. i was comparing the work done to plant a field of potatoes against raising an equivalent amount of cattle. i’m making no sweeping policy proposals.
Great, in a vacuum, and assuming efficiency of land does not matter, you are correct in saying it takes less work to produce less calories.
not just in a vaccuum but literally any time you have the option to plant a field or put a cow in it, it will always be less work to put a cow in it.
Did you miss ‘/s’ or do you genuinely believe that?
Cause if it’s the latter, you should go to your school and ask for a refund.
I don’t think youve ever planted a field if you think I’m wrong
And I don’t think you’ve ever considered the amount of food and water required for just a kilo of meat.
Hint: It’s exponentially more than a kilo of veggies or grains.
you haven’t been reading what I’m writing.
buy a cow. put it in a pasture. come back in 18 months.
OR
buy seed. till. plant. water. feed. harvest.
the time investment per calorie is vastly different.
making food is a good use of land.
Under literally any ethical system you choose.
deontological ethicists aren’t concerned with the consequences, only the action itself.
most of the crops fed to animals are parts of plants people can’t or won’t eat.
Not relevant. The field that is used to grow food stock for animals could have been used to grow food stock for humans. Potatoes have a high calorie count and are not particularly difficult to grow.
You’ll get far more calories out of the field of potatoes than a field of cows, unless you’re packing them in at the same density as the potato plants which I’m assuming you’re not.
You’ll get far more calories out of the field of potatoes than a field of cows,
if the land is unsuitable for crop production, you can often still raise cattle on it.
You still need to grow food to feed the cattle, if only for winter stock, so you have to find a fertile field to grow food stock, so that field could be used for growing crops and the field that’s unsuitable for anything else could just be, well not used. There’s absolutely no scenario where cattle are going to be more sustainable than crops.
There’s absolutely no scenario where cattle are going to be more sustainable than crops.
wrong.
you can feed cattle silage and crop seconds from food grown for people. you don’t need to plant crops just to feed cattle.
the field that’s unsuitable for anything else could just be, well not used
why, though? making food is a good use of land.
The field that is used to grow food stock for animals could have been used to grow food stock for humans.
often, it is. as i said, most of the crops fed to animals are parts of plants people can’t or won’t eat.
removed by mod
I was hoping they’d commit to, yes, ANY ethical system when I asked this, but they didn’t seem to even know what options existed
deontological systems are unconcerned with consequences.
I don’t know of any divine command theory systems that hold this axiom.
It’s not the meat eating that’s immoral, it’s the industrialization of meat production that is - robbing an animal of all its freedom and all its chances to actually be alive. It kills evolution. It is anti-life.
What is happening on these industrialized meat farms is utterly disgusting and will become a crime once synthetic meat production is economically viable. It’s existentially wrong beyond any morals.
Absolutely can’t wait for lab grown meat to reach industrial scale.
Hunted meat is really ethical in the mean time, in my country that usually means pheasant (at the right time of year) or venison (which is unfortunately not cheap at all, I’d really like to see deer hunting for meat encouraged by the government).
I do eat farmed meat, but I definitely eat less of it than I used to.
Hunting is also beneficial to the health of game animal herds, and is a fundamental part of wildlife conservation.
So it can be ethical, healthy, and tasty to eat meat from killed animals.
Not true they hunt the wrong ones. In nature the sick and weak are eaten by predators. We shoot the healthiest ones. Bad idea.
OK smart guy, go ask any wildlife conservationist about it or just google it. I’m right and you are absolutely wrong.
Either accept that you’re in the wrong but doing it anyway (as I am) or change
Lmao “you don’t get to actually disagree and the only options are you being wrong.”
Nah. Animals are lesser than people, and it’s fine to eat them
Yea, animal are basically slaves. They feed us and keep the ecosystem going. They are property, not individual.
Slavery was bad because it was people treating people like animals, so no they’re not like slaves, slaves were like them.
Important distinction
So u would be completely fine if I killed and ate puppies and kittens, right?
Sure? I don’t think they’d taste very good, but some cultures eat dogs. There’s definitely a hungry enough that I’d eat dog, and it’s way before shit like shoe leather
Alright, at least you’re morally consistent then.
No. I also wouldn’t be fine if you ate other stuff that I have for purposes other than eating, like a chocolate sculpture.Edit: Misread. My answer is yes.
Who said I would eat YOUR stuff? What if I purchased a puppy from a breeder (hence, my property), raised it till it was three, slaughtered it one day, marinated its meat, stuffed its ass with some of those noice spices, chucked it in the oven and served it to my kids for Thanksgiving? Would that be animal abuse?
Let’s go a step further. Let’s start a breeding farm for kittens.
“Meow”
“Shut the fuck up u furball! Now get into my fryer you! Gotta keep our Kentucky Fried Kittens profitable, don’t we?”
Would that be animal abuse? Would I be allowed to start my KFC alternative- KFK?
“KFK- Tasty, Cute, Meow meow”
Oh, sorry, I somehow misread your comment as “if I killed and ate your puppies and kittens”. I gotta read more careful next time.
Now get into my fryer you!
(That kinda sounds like you’d want to fry the animal without killing it before, which would obviously be animal abuse.)
If you don’t abuse the animal, it’s ok that you eat kittens and puppies.
That being said, I myself would still not want eat cat meat, because cats resemble humans too much, and because we interact with them a bit like they were human. For similar reasons I also wouldn’t want to eat ape meat, for example.
What sort of meat someone wants to eat can’t only be as rigid as either anything but human or anything but animal. One could for example decide not to eat any mammal meat, but still eat fish and bird. Or one could not want to eat the meat of any life-form, nor exploit any life-form for their needs (how gross of you to hold trees in masses and rip off their unborn offspring!), though living like that would be super difficult as of now. It just so happens to be that many people decide that lamb meat is ok for them to eat.
removed by mod
Circle of life. If I were in the wild and defenseless and animal wouldn’t hesitate to kill me, as it should be. It’s not wrong, it’s nature. Morality isn’t the same from person to person.
Quite an assumption. There’s nothing natural in factory farming. Circle of death, that is.
it’s not supernatural
You are assuming now. I never said anything about factory farming, just that eating meat was natural. I agree the methods are detestable.
You appealed to nature and threw a desert island scenario when the OP is clearly about animals raised in captivity and to be slaughtered way before their natural end of life. Also, eating meat is natural for carnivores. Us omnivores can do well (even better) without animal products.
There was no desert island scenario. There was a comparison to eating and being eaten, which is natural in both senses. As omnivores we developed to eat both meats and plants just like all other omnivores on the planet. To deny one part of our natural diet is unhealthy. You seem to have some kind of agenda which I will not be a part of.
You are entitled to your opinions and I will respect that but I will no longer communicate with you on the subject. Have a good week.
And good day to you, sir, too.
I agree with the people here calling out the cruelty of the industrialized meat industry, but eating meat in and of itself is not inherently wrong. The universe seems to consume itself by design—there is a reason Ouroboros (the serpent eating its own tail) is an ancient symbol for eternity. We are in an interlocked system that recycles matter and energy to sustain life.
Moderation in all things. Don’t take more than you need, but don’t deny yourself either. If I had my druthers, I would much rather be eaten by a cool animal after I die than sit in a box embalmed. Live a good life, and at least the animals you eat will be part of that positive contribution too.
I can completely agree the means to get to the end is indeed very cruel. We are all animals and I would not like to be treated so inhumanely just to die. However, eating meat is as natural as breathing.
I agree that I would rather my body go back into the circle than decay in the ground.
I looked and this isn’t satire. Somehow.
Any meat eater who is offended by his statements needs to find a big ol mirror and stare in it until they ratify that feeling with their diet.
That headline is probably based on a single tweet by some nobody, and they’re probably vegan.
…and they’re probably vegan.
I’m not so sure about that. I think lots of vegans would appreciate lampshading the brutality of slaughtering cute little baby sheep.
My bet would be on an omnivore that thinks of themselves as an animal lover getting upset by being made to feel cognitive dissonance.
lampshading
You missed an opportunity there for ‘lambshading’
What I’m an omnivores animal lover. I love them best in my belly
At least he’s honest.
As a vegetarian in this comment section
yummy yummy another grass eater
I never really understand why people find it so entertaining to make fun of vegetarians and vegans.
Their choice results in less suffering, plain and simple. Maybe you aren’t willing to change your diet, that’s your decision. But if others are willing to put effort into changing their diets and become vegetarian because it’s in line with their values, that’s admirable and should be applauded.
Please don’t make fun of people who put time and energy into pursuing their values. Not if you don’t see yourself as a bully.
Chill dude, I am a vegetarian myself. No time and energy is needed to be vegetarian.
for some people, it might.
If they mock and put down the ones making better choices, they won’t feel as bad about themselves for their own poorer choices.
Confidently Incorrect.
How so?
I eat meat and for a while now I’ve said vegans are simply right.
There’s a logical inconsistency with valuing the lives of pets, or being an “animal lover” who still eats meat. People don’t want to be confronted with their cognitive dissonance, so they make fun of people brave enough to make changes in their lives because it makes them feel better. I genuinely think everyone knows deep down that vegans are right, so they make up reasons as to why they’re “unlikeable.”
I’m sure in a century’s time when we are able to produce meat without killing animals through biological technologies, people will look back at us as morally depraved.
I’m vegan now, previously vegetarian. But before this I was in exactly the same position as you describe. It’s the first time that I’m actually hearing of someone who admits there can be an inconsistency between your own behaviour and your values.
Depending on what it is, sticking to your values is hard and requires changing your behaviour and habits. Your environment matters a lot. For me it was easy to switch to a vegetarian diet because my partner loves experimenting with cooking and collecting recipes. For many it won’t be this simple.
I used to think it would be easy for people generally to admit that it’s pretty unlikely that they’re sticking to all of their values, but apparently it’s not. I think it’s impressive how you’re managing not to let personal pride determine your opinion on this!
That’s interesting! I might find myself in your position in the future but a combination of factors for me makes being vegan a bit difficult.
Did you phase meat out of your diet gradually or go straight cold turkey?
I appreciate the likely uncomfortable truth you present here. Much respect to you and I generally feel the same. Not everyone is willing to move on now, and that’s just the nature of cultural norms. For me personally, I don’t particularly care what other people do and just try to lead by example.
It is really uncomfortable but also complex. There’s so many reasons people still eat meat but you can’t really engage with the discussion without acknowledging how expensive/ time consuming following a fulfilling vegan diet that meets all bodily needs is. I think that’s a big part of why people won’t “move on.” Someone else may correct me if I’m wrong because I don’t know much on this but I feel like a good vegan diet is so heavily commodified that people can’t afford it. The majority of people dom’t have a choice as things are, and there aren’t many policy changes being put in place to enable ordinary working to lower middle class people to seriously consider a vegan diets.
I do agree it requires significant education. I think it’s about what’s served to us as a cultural norm and thus habit-ingraining. For instance, my parents will never switch because it’s too much effort to teach old dogs new tricks. They grew up around dairy farms and massive lobbyists in the meat & cattle industry shaping the menu of the America diet.
And admittedly, it would’ve been harder to be vegetarian 20 years ago or more than now, thanks to access to vegetarian options, wider produce options, and restaurant menus accommodating this.
To put in perspective, India and Asia has large populations subsisting on largely vegetarian / vegan diets for dirt-cheap. If for example it weren’t the dairy and poultry lobbyists who reigned supreme in America but rather soybean and legume lobbyists, we’d be making the opposite arguments of convenience as we are now. It’s sort of the same argument oil lobbyists made in resisting the shift to electric vehicles and rail transit.
I can’t fully speak for vegans as I’m not one. I suppose I’m close to an Ovo-vegetarian who avoids dairy when possible but not religiously.
I can say that if you really want to be vegetarian or vegan, it CAN be done as cheaply if not more cheaply than the average middle or lower-class diet. But again it takes more education in nutrition to know exactly what you’re looking for. When I first transitioned to vegetarianism, it was a massive learning-curve that took me at least 2-3 years to start getting a sufficient grasp on the dietary needs and adjust accordingly. Most people simply don’t know how.
I don’t agree with that, here’s a study from Oxford University confirming vegan diets are on average 33% cheaper than omniverous diets.
It can be expensive going vegan if you eat brand name fake meat every day but everyday vegan staples (chickpeas, lentils, beans etc) cost very little.
It’s only admirable to be vegan if I agree with veganism, and I don’t. It’s no more admirable to be vegan than it is to be a scientologist.
The self-righteousness blasted everywhere is why you get made fun of.
Read this other comment and understand why people mention they are vegetarian or vegan: https://lemmy.world/comment/4652396
It’s only admirable to be vegan if I agree with veganism, and I don’t.
Veganism is mostly a diet… not a religion. What does it even mean to say that you disagree with it? If some people feel like they should be vegan and they put effort into it and are willing to give things up, why shouldn’t this be admirable?
I can go into detail on this, actually. It centers around personal insecurity, and a lack of empathy. Let me explain:
Keep in mind I used to eat meat. I’ve been a vegetarian for well over 10 years now.
So often they joke or sometimes project with, “how do you know someone’s a vegetarian/vegan? They’ll tell you.”
Now I get this can just be a joke, but oftentimes it comes off more passive-aggressive, reeking of insecurity. So entertain some possible reasons why vegetarians / vegans “tell you”:
Whose experience has been that bad with vegetarians/vegans, truly? Apart from what’s perpetuated and inflated in media and pop-culture. I’m literally surrounded by 97% of meat-eaters. How do I know they’re meat-eaters? I can guess because… 97% are meat-eaters. And that’s fine. But my sample of meat-eaters mocking what I choose to eat is far larger than the reverse. 3% means you aren’t bumping into too many of us. Speaking for myself, most of the moral arguments are fanned by those wondering why I chose to be one and cornered me into revealing I am a vegetarian (usually because the office or my group of friends is getting lunch or something, or I’m offered something I cannot have). Every single time I kindly explain my reasons and make an effort to note, “I don’t care what anyone else does, I just want to do my thing and lead by my own example.” Yet understand: it was THEY who asked ME. Food and eating with people is just an event that happens frequently. As a result it’s bound to happen that someone orders you something you can’t eat or attempts to and you explain to them why you cannot. They ask what you brought for lunch and the moment tofu crosses your mouth, cue the questions. Apparently they resent this and store this as ammunition later, and then remember it being you getting on a soapbox telling them what an awful person they are. (That’s probably their inner-conscience talking).
So — duh — it’s because you asked.
I assure you, speaking as a former meat-eater who was a meat-eater longer than a vegetarian, we receive A LOT more shit than we dish out. Most of us just want to do our thing and not even tell you. I don’t particularly like the attention when it’s pointed out — as is the case with most of my peers. I don’t mind questions, I just want mutual respect for my choices. Thus considering the sheer ratio of encounters between omnivores/carnivores vs. Plant-based diets, combined with the fact that most vegetarians/vegans have at one point been on the other side while the reverse isn’t true, I’d say people me know better the perspectives of both positions.
The problem is that diet becomes deeply personal and political for people. When they see someone else do something they don’t feel they can do themselves, then they either (a) try to elevate themselves above that person (case-in-point with @straypet below), or (b) try to bring the other person down. This has everything to do with ego and self-esteem.
Their choice results in less suffering
no, it doesn’t.
removed by mod
Poor grammar and an incapacity to have basic commenting ettquiette.
your bourgeois standards of literacy don’t change whether i’m right.
removed by mod
removed by mod
i’m just gob-smacked that you think trying to paint me as unstable somehow changes whether everything i’ve said is true.
theres no causal mechanic that would result in less suffering. think of it this way: if i take a cup of water out of a bucket , then the bucket has less water. what is the mechanic by which less suffering exists?
edit:
after failing to meaningfully undermine my claim, this user decided to imply i have a mental illness, and lied about the nature of what i said and then tried to poison the well by editing their comment near the top of our subthread and has the gall to say i’m not participating in good faith. this accusation is, itself, bad faith. i encourage you to read what was said here, and decide for yourself whether being vegan reduces suffering.
double edit:
i’m no tankie. baby, i’m an anarchist.
Inefficiency. Entropy. Laws of thermodynamics.
Think of it this way. In a game of telephone, signal quality degrades. Remove the middle-men, you improve the signal-to-noise. In a similar manner, there is little point in raising livestock on land, only to greatly pollute said land, only to produce a substance in less quantity and quality than what you could’ve done in its absence. Less demand means less livestock raised or tortured.
In another way, if you are saying that whether these animals roam free and die by the nature versus being grown in confined cages to be harvested… Then I wager whether if aliens descended upon this planet and you could either live as you do or you and your offspring be raised like cattle in a dark cramped alien farm, hauled around by convey-belts for the slaughter — tell me, which would you prefer?
Edit: This peculiar user who lacks the capacity to respond with a single coherent comment in the thread (Schizophrenia? I don’t know…) espouses various logical fallacies and deflections. I am utterly unimpressed by their incoherent rebuttals and have no interest in discussing with bad-faith laziness. My points remain largely untouched.
Less demand means less livestock raised
that’s not causal
In another way, if you are saying that whether these animals roam free and die by the nature versus being grown in confined cages to be harvested… Then I wager whether if aliens descended upon this planet and you could either live as you do or you and your offspring be raised like cattle in a dark cramped alien farm, hauled around by convey-belts for the slaughter — tell me, which would you prefer?
this is a nonsequitur. it has nothing to do with whether being vegan reduces sufffering, which it doesn’t.
Inefficiency. Entropy. Laws of thermodynamics.
these are not magic words which take the place of a properly constructed argument.
how much has suffering been reduced?
Can you provide another example please? I’m not sure I follow the bucket analogy.
If I choose not to eat meat it lessens the demand for it (however minutely). On a larger scale with many vegans refusing to eat meat less animals are bred into existence to be slaughtered.
What am I missing?
i didn’t like the bucket analogy when i wrote it. i don’t blame you.
i’m just looking for proof of causation between being vegan and suffering being reduced.
On a larger scale with many vegans refusing to eat meat less animals are bred into existence to be slaughtered.
that has never happened. if it had, if being vegan had caused production of meat to fall, then i think you could make a case. but it hasn’t so you can’t.
Not sure why he believes citing that graph is some great counterpoint. Less demand does factually translate to less supply and therefore less suffering. The problem is that populations still continue to grow and the number of vegetarians/vegans is neglible to overall growth.
Obviously if every vegan and vegetarian suddenly began eating meat again, then that graph would only increase in rate of change.
Change the minds of more people, and watch that change the rate of supply of course.
