. The race of a voice actor doesn’t matter

. It is possible to wear yoga pants because there comfy

. You don’t need to shower everyday

. It is possible to crossdress/be gender non-conforming without being trans

. Monty Python is very overrated

      • 🦄🦄🦄@feddit.org
        1210·
        3 days ago

        Inflicting pain and suffering is bad, especially if done for selfish reasons, like pleasure (and tbh if someone were to disagree with that, I’d dont want to talk to them). Exploiting animals is exactly that, taste pleasure to be exact.

          • jsomae@lemmy.ml
            4·
            3 days ago

            It does, because the meat industry is tremendously abusive to animals. Ontop of that it’s a poor use of land and it contributes greatly to global warming. But for sure, the animals feel pain and suffering assuming it is possible for them to do so. Trillions of shrimp die horribly painful deaths every year, but nobody cares because they have a funny-sounding name.

            • anarchaos@lemmy.ml
              23·
              2 days ago

              none of this makes eating meat cause pain or suffering. these are all problems with production, not consumption.

                • anarchaos@lemmy.ml
                  12·
                  2 days ago

                  an event in the future cannot cause an event in the past. eating the meat doesn’t cause it to have been produced.

                  • jsomae@lemmy.ml
                    1·
                    2 days ago

                    That is true, so the pieces of meat which were placed on earth by god 6k years ago can be eaten guilt-free. However, all other pieces of meat require harvesting from an animal first, incurring the aforementioned downsides. Just as purchasing an item encourages its production, eating meat encourages its purchase.

                    Here are two simple scenarios where eating the meat does indeed cause meat to be produced:

                    • your eating it means that another person doesn’t eat it, so another piece of meat must be purchased for that other person;
                    • your eating the meat signals to whoever got the meat for you (perhaps yourself) that you are willing to eat meat and hence they pick up a propensity to get meat for you again in the future.

                    Isn’t this simple common sense though? Were you really not aware this is how the world works?

                  • 🦄🦄🦄@feddit.org
                    21·
                    2 days ago

                    I am not interested in discussing meta-physics. For you to eat meat, an animal suffered. That is the point.

              • jsomae@lemmy.ml
                2·
                3 days ago

                Moral baseline is not a necessity. It’s a comparison point. Basically, if you’re not vegan, you should be doing something else to end up net-positive (from a utilitarian point of view). I’m not vegan, I’m vegetarian, so I’m in the negatives I guess.

        • Artemis_Mystique@lemmy.ml
          77·
          3 days ago

          classic first worlder with their elevated standard of living:

          • Animal based protein is often cheaper and more easily accessible
          • herbivores as a middle step helps digest frankly indigestible plants

          I am not disagreeing with you there is a fine line between acceptable and gluttonous, but acting holier than though, just cause you insistently chew grass and destroy your gut biome doesn’t help the animals

          • 🦄🦄🦄@feddit.org
            56·
            3 days ago

            Would you be happier with the moral baseline being “Whoever can go vegan, should”?

            BTW. there is only one world :)

    • jsomae@lemmy.ml
      21·
      3 days ago

      How are you going to get vitamin B12 while being vegan? As far as I know it’s not possible.

      • 🦄🦄🦄@feddit.org
        3·
        3 days ago

        By supplementing it. As should people who are not vegan, cause B12 is one of the most common deficiencies.

    • Korhaka@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      54·
      3 days ago

      Counter argument, I need to eat and I can catch seafood myself without contributing towards capitalism. Isn’t a full diet but its a start. Can make it into a full meal with some rice.

        • Korhaka@sopuli.xyzEnglish
          73·
          3 days ago

          I need to eat food. You can’t really just state the moral base line is not to eat

            • Korhaka@sopuli.xyzEnglish
              124·
              3 days ago

              Must be nice being rich enough to eat what ever you feel like having. Some of us are not so fortunate and have to make do with what is available.

              • jsomae@lemmy.ml
                2·
                3 days ago

                Assuming fish don’t have feelings, it is fine. But if fish have 0.1% the moral weight of a human being, can you say you’re worth more than 1000 fish?

              • jsomae@lemmy.ml
                2·
                2 days ago

                Well you could have asked this person to explain instead of just saying “no it’s not.” Also, as far as I’m aware, there’s no reason for positive claims ought to have the burden of proof instead of a negative claim. Any positive claim can be turned into a negative claim by phrasing it in the negative anyway, and positing the non-existence of something still carries the burden of proof.

                Anyway, veganism generally has a clear rationale behind it that is widely known, but rarely do I see people seriously arguing that omnivorism is as ethical as veganism. So – burden of proof lies on you I’d say.

                • anarchaos@lemmy.ml
                  1·
                  2 days ago

                  a claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. dismissing that claim is not the same as making a claim.

                  • jsomae@lemmy.ml
                    1·
                    2 days ago

                    dismissing the claim is merely an action that occurs in the eye of the beholder. Your dismissing a claim does not actually challenge the claim or affect the one who holds it, so why even?

      • Applejuicy@feddit.nl
        53·
        3 days ago

        Anytime someone mentions veganism, there has to be a discussion on plants. Interesting how you suddenly care about vegetables.

        Vegetables are not sentient, and even if they were, it requires fewer plants if you eat them directly instead of feeding them to an animal first for years, and then killing the animal.

        I’m actually not interested in talking to you, but perhaps someone will read this and realize how absurd it is to compare chopping vegetables to slicing the throat of an animal.

      • 🦄🦄🦄@feddit.org
        45·
        3 days ago

        Oh I am sure you are completely honest! As the good plants rights activist that you clearly are, you of course already know that it takes many more plants to raise animals for slaughter than eating them directly.

        And on a more serious note: plants don’t feel shit. They don’t have a central nervous system to even process a concept like pain.

        • Breezy@lemmy.world
          16·
          3 days ago

          A kid i went to school with couldnt feel pain due to nerve damage. He loved playing knuckles but no one could beat him. So you belive if he didn’t feel pain it was okay to use brass knuckle against him.

          • 🦄🦄🦄@feddit.org
            2·
            3 days ago

            You just called me a piece of shit. I am sure you have better things to do with your life (like playing knuckles) than talking to a piece of shit.