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

    If we’re only allowing people who don’t abuse animals at the olympics, does that mean it’ll be all vegan this year?? 🤞

      • 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.

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

                  Ridiculous conclusions once again. Why the fuck are cows being fed corn? Cows should be eating grass, something humans cannot process, in order to provide something that we can. While we are at it, corn isn’t all that nutritious either. It will suffice if you are starving but it will never provide long term nutrition needs for any population.

                  Humans are omnivores, get over it. Being a meat eater isn’t a choice, look at all the emaciated Auschwitz looking mfers that eventually resort back to meat eating after decades of being vegans. Animal products, especially organ meat, are the best source of maximally bio available nutrients and minerals you will find anywhere in nature. Your precious plants do not want to be eaten and in fact contain anti nutrients and such to discourage you from doing so.

                  If you want to talk environment at more than the spoon-fed surface level narrative that you are regurgitating, look at what planting monocrops is doing to top soil quality all over the world, not to mention the extreme disruption tilling and such cause to the local ecosystem. Don’t strawman me again by talking factory farming, that is a cruel practice that ought to be outlawed. Responsible cattle rearing improves the local ecosystem due to the fertilising and soil-churning action of the animals, they eat what we can’t and covert them into things we can and even plants benefit from grazing action. Animals can even graze in areas not suitable for crop growing.

                  It is obvious you have too much soy clogging up your brain to actually apply your own thinking to this subject and not just be spoon fed like a momo.