It's morally indefensible to eat animals while living in a developed country
It's morally indefensible to eat animals while living in a developed country
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI
— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
I don't get your point. Meat is extremely expensive in the third world.
Because we don't need to eat meat to survive and there are plenty of reasonable alternatives to it. So when people eat meat in a developed country, it's solely for pleasure. We're forcing animals to suffer unnecessarily solely for pleasure.
Yeah but this applies better in the third world because it's much harder to get meat.
I'm not talking about "the third world" I'm talking about communities that literally don't have access to groceries or markets and still rely on hunting to survive
That's fine. However eating meat in a country that has easy access to reasonable alternatives is not okay.
neither is owning a flat apartment when you could be living with roomates and lowering your carbon footprint
also riding your bike rather than a car
and sleeping on a slate bed with a marx dildo shoved up your ass
you don't need your own room to survive, you don't need heating or plumbing to survive, you don't need a car to survive, etc.
the basics of survival are pretty grim
None of those require killing a sentient being. Eating meat, necessarily, requires a sentient being to die and suffer. If lab grown meat becomes a thing then I'll concede but so far it isn't, so eating meat is morally wrong
they were going to die anyway. Or never even live. There is nothing immoral in killing in itself, only in its context
You can apply that logic to anyone and anything
>Who cares if I murdered grandpa, he was going to die anyways!
indeed, now we're getting to the "meat" of the issue, which is the context of killing is what makes it right or wrong, the killing itself isn't immoral by itself.
>We're forcing animals to suffer unnecessarily solely for pleasure.
Who cares?
morality is anthropocentric since its only goal is the survival and nourishment of humans. the only reason we have any regard for animals is our overdeveloped "goodness"
>morally indefensible
Ok. So I don't defend it. I'm alright with being a tiny bit immoral, now what?
So you'd have no problem if someone tortured a cat to death for fun? Or if they just murdered stray puppies for fun?
Don't care unless they're someone's elses pets
So you'd have no problem if someone tortured their own pet for fun? Animal cruelty laws and all that are redundant?
Destroying their own property
Not my problem
Who gives a shit about laws?
>you'd have no problem if somebody did something with their personal property
No. Is this where you animal fuckers overlap with commie troons?
>Animal cruelty laws
Are in place as a filter for psychos. None of these laws are for "protecting animals". They reflect on the human commiting the act for gratification rather than the mindless animal being tortured. Just because your heckin furbabies aren't people doesn't mean we should give mentally ill degenerates free reign to drive needles into them.
Nonetheless, the idea of attaching laws to something that cannot comprehend them is retarded, just like you. The only "laws" that protect animals are the same ones that make them fall under legal property. Like children, their rights pertain to their guardians. You cannot give a child the right to vote, as they can't understand any of it. Likewise, giving a wild beast "rights" implies that there was some mutual agreement to uphold those rights. Most animals would kill your soi ass in a heartbeat and gnaw your skull (including your pets should you ever collapse around them and never get up).
This, it's childish and effimate to see every animal as your pet
Animals are ultimately property of their owners. If anyone hurt your pet you're in your legal rights to sue or even kill them if they met certain legal criteria that would constitute self-defense. They have no rights independent of those which pertain to their owners.
No I don't care if some sick fuck gets off on torturing cats but such individuals should be psychologically monitored.
Animals aren't people and don't have rights. Seethe.
Based. The favor that Redditors have for animals over humanity disgusts me.
No. I'm okay with people eating animals cuz they are tasty.
I'm not okay with them torturing them for fun.
It doesn't need to be
Morality deals with people
Animals aren't people, livestock are resources, food
see
torture isn't the same as consuming an animal dullard.
Yeah.
But only if we hunt and kill them ourselves.
>It's morally indefensible to eat
Eating is for the weak
The only reason countries develop and stay developed is by doing morally indefensible things, so eating meat is perfectly on-brand.
Is it morally defensible to kill thousands of insects and small animals while harvesting they crop to eat? Is it morally defensible to swallow, a bacterial genocide in stomach acid?
It's morally repugnant to punish poor people for not being able to afford vegan diets on behalf of your inflated sense of righteousness.
When libtards stop killing babies by the billions then they can lecture me on consuming an adult cow.
You realize that we, as the animals we are, require meats to be eaten. That is how we got to this place and that is how we maintain this place. I live with a vegitarian. I'm twice her (him, she's a FtM) age and she looks older than me, is much more lethargic than me, always has headaches and shakes, is very unfit despite use having to walk the same route every day to work, awful skin, can't think, etc. We need meat.
Okay. I value the taste of meat more than the abstract idea of moral virtue.
Where do you get these "morals" from? Morals are from God and God says eating meat is good.
What about ze bugz Dr. Schwab? Is it allowed to eat those?