• iiGxC@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Taking a life for pleasure is abuse, and I’d bet a lot of money that nobody reading this actually needs to eat animals to survive

      • sazey@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        You obviously need some animal protein in your diet if these are the kind of leaps in logic you make.

          • sazey@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            what about the 100s of thousands of small vermin and critters that are killed when a field is tilled to plant a nutrionally useless soy monoculture? or do they not meet your threshold for photogenicity and cuteness like normal farm animals do?

            The specific leap in logic I was referring to was equating killing for nutrition to killing for ‘pleasure’. Equating the two is usually the strawman behind most vegan arguments.

            • MindTraveller@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              It’s not a strawman. Being a meat eater is a choice. If you just want nutrition, you’re a vegan. You choose meat if you like the taste of corpse better than the efficiency of plants.

              If you’re a carnist, then your food needs food. In the US, your food’s food is typically a corn monoculture. Your cows need to eat many times as much corn as their meat is worth, in terms of kilojoules. We could just feed a tenth of the corn to people and get rid of the cows, and let the other 9/10 corn fields return to nature. But, you people want a hamburger because it tastes good. This ain’t about nutrition or the environment.