this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2023
1316 points (90.8% liked)

Memes

45895 readers
1314 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 72 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Agreed, if a bear can eat a person why can't I eat a person?!

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 62 points 1 year ago (1 children)

OP will be real dangerous when he learns fish also don't ask for consent.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago

They don't? I've been wasting my time.

[–] ziltoid101 53 points 1 year ago (38 children)

Nobody is saying that fish are moral agents that can empathise with other beings. That doesn't man that they're not moral subjects; the ability to understand that one is causing harm is not a prerequisite for the ability to suffer oneself. I think everyone knows this intuitively, but it does feel good to have our less moral habits be justified by memes that we would otherwise find to be illogical.

load more comments (38 replies)
[–] [email protected] 43 points 1 year ago (1 children)

By this logic, is it fair game to eat people who eat animals?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Only humans that eat other humans.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 41 points 1 year ago (2 children)

How come fish can eat their own offspring but we can't do the same to ours?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Fish eating fish doesn't lead to ecological disturbance. Humans have put multiple species on the verge of extinction.

[–] [email protected] 37 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

You consider humans superior in intellect and ability compared to all other animals yet can't grasp the fact that some humans have chosen to use said superior intellect and ability to avoid killing other animals?

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] MiddleWeigh 36 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Something needs to die for you to survive, what and how much is up to your individual tolerance for input/output ratio.

Death and suffering is a natural state of being in nature. I can reduce it, but I still need to survive.

I hate fishing. I don't need to fish in my current station. If I did, I would fish.

[–] [email protected] 52 points 1 year ago (20 children)

Exactly. Pretty common misconception about vegan ideology. Vegans don't think people in developing nations have a moral imperative to change their ways because they don't have an alternative.

I don't need to eat meat, so I don't.

load more comments (20 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The difference is that the fish needs to eat the other fish. We don't need ANY animal products. So every killed animal suffered and lost their life for 10min of taste for us that we didn't need. Being vegan is so easy in 2023.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (38 children)

taste

what about vitamins? proteins and other nutrients

like omega 3 fatty acid majorly found in fishes

[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 year ago (10 children)

There are plenty of plant sources of Omega 3. Flax seeds, walnuts, soybeans, and canola oil all have decent amounts of omega 3 in them. As for protein, legumes generally have a bunch.

Really, the only thing a vegan needs to supplement is B12, but even that gets added to a bunch of stuff like breakfast cereals and plant milks if you consume those.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (20 children)

You can take them as supplements. It's the same for your body. Oh and you are already doing that, because they give supplements to the animals they raise and kill, we are just eliminating the middleman.

load more comments (20 replies)
load more comments (36 replies)
[–] Rhoeri 29 points 1 year ago (38 children)

I’m not on either side of the argument, but would guess a good argument would be that fish need to eat other fish in order to survive as it’s their only source of food. We don’t. Provenly.

load more comments (38 replies)
[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Buy a man eat fish, he day, teach fish man, to a lifetime

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Build a man a campfire and he's warm for the night; set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago (7 children)

As far as value goes, I don't particularly value my own life or that of a fish. I do value the suffering of both while living though, as in I want to minimise that as much as possible.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] debil 25 points 1 year ago (3 children)

sigh Came from reddit to lemmy, still see stupid af carnist memes like this. Don't know if it's a win or what for the fediverse

[–] DTFpanda 25 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I'm sorry, but I laughed at carnist. Lighten up.

[–] Rachelhazideas 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Relax, I'm a carnist/flexitarian. There's nothing wrong with attributing a name to non-vegans/non-vegetarians. The world isn't divided into vegans/vegetarians and so called 'normal people'. It's just as normal to not eat meat in some parts of the world.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (21 children)

Yeah, the preferred term is bloodmouth

load more comments (21 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago (10 children)

I have never understood this logic. If a lion eats a zebra, there's nothing wrong with it, but when a human eats a cow, they're a horrible person. (also I know that not all vegans think like this)

I personally believe there's nothing inherently wrong with eating meat, and instead the problem is how we treat the animals we eat and that we eat way too much meat, taking it for granted.

[–] BraBraBra 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

We are intelligent and capable of considering the idea that an animal may not want to die, and we have it within our means to survive without meat, or with much less meat than we currently consume.

Animals who are being lead to slaughter have been observed to panic and try to flee. They do not want to die. What right do we have to take the life of an animal that wants to live as much as any other person? We are capable of considering this question. Animals are not. That's the difference.

Even as a carnivore you would not eat a freshly born baby straight out of the mother's womb, whereas any other predator would see it as an easy meal. There IS a moral implication in taking life.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (9 children)

Arguing that something's okay because it's a natural behaviour is the naturalistic fallacy. The difference is that other species don't have any choice over how they live or even the mental capacity to think about the morality of their actions. Humans that are well-off and don't have medical conditions that clash with veganism do.

I used to agree with the second paragraph, but watching videos of pigs/cows/chickens being slaughtered changed my mind. Imo their prior treatment doesn't really negate what happens there- and even if it did, I couldn't use ideal farm conditions as a defense when the vast majority of meat I've been eating is raised under less ideal conditions.

(This isn't calling anyone who eats a burger satan, to be clear. Just trying to say my views in good faith.)

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] chase_what_matters 16 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Can someone explain this template to me?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] TommySalami 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is why I'm a pesca-pescatarian. I only eat fish that eat other fish.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago

Because we don't need to

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I suppose it was only a matter of time before the vegans vs meat eaters oozed on over from Reddit.

[–] Bunnylux 12 points 1 year ago

You mean, people?

load more comments
view more: next ›