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

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I don't get your point. Meat is extremely expensive in the third world.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah but this applies better in the third world because it's much harder to get meat.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          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.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            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

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          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

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            they were going to die anyway. Or never even live. There is nothing immoral in killing in itself, only in its context

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You can apply that logic to anyone and anything
            >Who cares if I murdered grandpa, he was going to die anyways!

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >We're forcing animals to suffer unnecessarily solely for pleasure.
        Who cares?

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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"

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >morally indefensible
    Ok. So I don't defend it. I'm alright with being a tiny bit immoral, now what?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      So you'd have no problem if someone tortured a cat to death for fun? Or if they just murdered stray puppies for fun?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Don't care unless they're someone's elses pets

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          So you'd have no problem if someone tortured their own pet for fun? Animal cruelty laws and all that are redundant?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Destroying their own property
            Not my problem

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Who gives a shit about laws?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >you'd have no problem if somebody did something with their personal property
            No. Is this where you animal frickers overlap with commie troons?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >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 moronic, 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).

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          This, it's childish and effimate to see every animal as your pet

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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 frick gets off on torturing cats but such individuals should be psychologically monitored.

        Animals aren't people and don't have rights. Seethe.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Based. The favor that Redditors have for animals over humanity disgusts me.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        No. I'm okay with people eating animals cuz they are tasty.
        I'm not okay with them torturing them for fun.

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    It doesn't need to be
    Morality deals with people
    Animals aren't people, livestock are resources, food

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      see

      So you'd have no problem if someone tortured a cat to death for fun? Or if they just murdered stray puppies for fun?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        torture isn't the same as consuming an animal dullard.

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah.
    But only if we hunt and kill them ourselves.

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >It's morally indefensible to eat
    Eating is for the weak

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The only reason countries develop and stay developed is by doing morally indefensible things, so eating meat is perfectly on-brand.

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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?

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    It's morally repugnant to punish poor people for not being able to afford vegan diets on behalf of your inflated sense of righteousness.

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    When libtards stop killing babies by the billions then they can lecture me on consuming an adult cow.

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Okay. I value the taste of meat more than the abstract idea of moral virtue.

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Where do you get these "morals" from? Morals are from God and God says eating meat is good.

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    What about ze bugz Dr. Schwab? Is it allowed to eat those?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *