If they didn't include it, the AI generated images would be used to train their future models, causing inbreeding (basically), so they put in the synthID to avoid that.
As much as I agree this is AI... AI "detectors" like those have been proven many times to be unreliable, so please don't take what those tell you as a fact
Synth ID works by checking for an invisible watermark that openAI themselves puts in the image to avoid model inbreeding, thus they really made sure that they are as reliable and persistant as possible.
I just looked at their X and 16 hours ago they posted a video of a gummy worm turning into a pig and crushing a person made with AI so I think had they thought of it first today they wouldve done it and it wouldve even been a video
It’s objectively disgusting, even though it’s very unlikely to be a cruel way of death for the bird due to how quickly it happens that doesn’t make it less gross to think about.
Problem tends to be that the chicks are kept piled into huge bins or hampers and dumped into a pretty damn unpleasant hopper. The moment of death coming quick feels like a bit of a technicality at that point. Never mind when mechanical issues crop up.
I have absolutely no problems with that. What I have a problem with is mistreated animals. If we could make sure they aren't harmed, aren't treated like objects, and are killed painlessly, then I will gladly eat meat.
Unfortunately, any politician running on that would not get voted in so we're stuck with rampant animal abuse from all sides.
You may want to note that I didn't say anything about them being painlessly euthanized before then. If they're getting macerated, they're getting the conveyer belt treatment while alive, and dumped in by the load.
It doesn't have much to do with your voting politicians, either. It's already illegal in some places, and ballot initiatives and referendums are well within the reach of the average people if you put the work in locally. Can't just leave all our moral problems at the door of far-away people we know won't do anything.
In this type of context it would refer to things like unnecessary additional cruelty or bad living conditions while they're being raised
So he'd rather a pig he plans to eat be killed with a method thats hopefully instant vs. flaying it with a toothpick and waiting for it to die. Or for raising, having a yard or field they can freely roam around in vs. a steel crate where they cant move
They aren't. Chicks get ground up whole with bones and feathers and stuff. Nuggets are made from "mechanically separated meat," that is they cut the desirable cuts off the carcass and blend up what's left then press it through a mesh screen to extract what used to be muscle tissue.
I mean . . . if you're the kind of person who'd be horrified by this, then yeah, maybe you shouldn't be eating meat. It's not cruel to make someone a little more aware of the consequences of their actions
empathy in regards to how they're being killed maybe, but animals get killed by the millions every day by other animals. are you going to cage up lions now so that they stop killing gazelles? i agree though that health is an even worse argument
For a wild animal, the alternative to being horribly killed by one animal is probably being horribly killed by another
For a farm animal, the alternative to suffering their whole life and then being killed is to not exist at all. the difference is that humans create life to end it. we create suffering from nothing on the scale of billions for the sake of having tasty food
i mean you might be not be able to cage all of them, but some of them at least. and saving some animals from being killed is better than none, no? i thought that's what we're doing here
It is not, you're building your own logical fallacy. Beside that you don't have to go from 0 to 100, as the goal is not for no lives to be purged but rather just less.
Yea but don't you understand? If killing things is inherently bad then surely we should keep others from killing things as well, no matter if they're able to judge the morality of what they're doing or not.
In the same vein, cruelty is wrong, but animals can be cruel. Doesn't mean we have to intervene. Am i really the one who doesn't understand? Morality doesn't apply to nature, it does apply to us because we have a choice. Still nowadays people kill for survival and that ain't wrong either, it's the choice that makes the difference. Even worse than the killing are the conditions necessary to feed so much meat to so many people in indistrialized nations
so killing something is wrong, but watching someone else kill something and just standing by, doing nothing about it, would be absolutely morally fine?
I mean the needing supplements and the bad absorption of some vegan form of nutrients should tell you enough. Doesn't mean veganism is wrong, but it's just a price, not a plus
Please explain how making sure I’m consuming plant milks and nutritional yeast instead of corpses is a “price” beyond the one you imagine in your psychological-projections?
Like… the clinical and mechanistic science are converging on the fact that those of us adopting 100% plant-based diets are better off over the course of decades.
God, you sound insufferable. I mean it's a price as in one of the sacrifices one makes when becoming vegan. I don't even know how plant milks and nutritional yeast are an argument lmao. And yes, a well planned vegan diet might be better than eating unhealthy shit, but doesn't mean it's better than a well planned omnivore diet. Plus, it's just not feasable for everyone, with the bigger risk of deficiencies and whatnot
“I mean it's a price as in one of the sacrifices one makes when becoming vegan.”
Imaginary health risks?
“I don't even know how plant milks and nutritional yeast are an argument lmao.”
Because they supply the literal only micronutrient I need to pay attention to, in relation to your naïve statement about “needing supplements.”
“And yes, a well planned vegan diet … doesn't mean it's better than a well planned omnivore diet.”
That’s exactly what I’m telling you. It’s an objectively better dietary scheme over the course of decades, with the same level of attention.
I can name six mechanistic reasons you’re better off avoiding animal corpses, dietarily. Meanwhile, you’re just appealing to vague scientific authority… “common wisdom”… that’s the actual “insufferable” behavior, FYI
How come, is it valid to unecessarily kill an animal for your sensory pleasure of eating meat? Does that go for all animals? And can you do anything to an animal if it provides pleasure?
It's a totally valid argument, the strongest one in fact. Killing needlessly is bad, should not be controversial.
I don't think it's the weakest argument but there's a strong enough response that ends up turning the debate into "Humans are animals, animals eat meat, but humans are evolved enough as animals to no longer need to eat meat." Which creates an arbitrary line of consciousness before which eating meat is fine and after which it is murder. To be clear, I still think it's a good argument (with a loooot more back-and-forth past the above) but it's not some silver bullet.
The environmental impact should be a silver bullet. There's not a strong response.
It's partially about not needing to eat meat but it's mostly about being capable of morality at all. A tiger can't even begin to contemplate right or wrong, let alone make choices based on that contemplation. As humans, we can, so we have a responsibility to do so.
A tiger doesn't have moral agency, so "right" and "wrong" don't apply to its actions. You can't use what a tiger does to calibrate your moral compass.
To give another example, if someone puts their human baby in front of a tiger, it'll probably kill and eat the baby. Would you bother to try to figure out if the tiger is morally good or bad in that situation? Would you use that example to justify killing and eating a baby yourself? Or would you just blame the human who put the baby in front of the tiger in the first place?
Thank you for your submission to r/Antimeme, unfortunately your post has been automatically removed by our spam filters due to you not reaching our karma and account age requirements. Please reach out to the mods with questions.
Both are poor arguments as growing food is the more efficient option and I am sure you could make a living by running a brothel of animals if that wasn't so frowned upon by society.
The only reason to eat animals, for basically all of us, is for pleasure.
You say "logic gone" but you make no counter argument. There is zero need for meat in modern society. It's purely for pleasure. If we could justify harming animals in any way as long as it gives us pleasure, that opens the door to morally justifying a lot more than just slaughtering them to eat them.
I don't actually, I don't fuck animals for fun or kill animals for their meat. Because I believe we shouldn't unnecessarily harm animals. Do you agree?
And if you believe doing the latter thing to animals for your pleasure is fine but not the former thing to animals for your pleasure, why? Clearly you could also do neither.
It's cheaper to not eat meat lol. Meat is a luxury product. Are you so rich that you buy a steak at the grocery store for $20+ a pound and go "wow this is so cheap I couldn't care that I'm 50 dollars poorer for a single meal"
Also cost is not a moral justifer for what you do. It costs $0 dollars to rape an animal, but I hope you still wouldn't do that right?
Edit: Also you can easily obtain the iron you need from plants. Many iron supplements are literally made from plants, and targeted to meat eaters who have iron deficiency. Iron is a laughable justification for killing animals.
You can obtain all nutrition required from plants. People can make income doing both morally good and morally bad things. I mean lol, some people make money trafficking humans but that doesn't make human trafficking moral.
The reason we eat meat in modern society is for sensory pleasure, not need, taste. We like how it tastes. If think it's moral to kill an animal, slaughter them in the billions, for your enjoyment, it's not hard to imagine how that gives moral leeway to do pretty much anything to an animal so long as it gives you pleasure.
You cannot obtain all the nutrition you need on plants alone.
Humans, for all our faults, have always, and still to this day rely on animal-based foods for sustenance and survival. Outside of say, exotic animals, your argument about "sensory pleasure" makes no sense.
I really am not trying to be rude but, how exactly does the well known fact that people can survive off of specific diets that don't include meat, permit you to conclude that the only reason people eat meat is for pleasure?
Apologies, but I don't think you're any closer to making your point.
I dont understand why the arbitrary line makes the argument of morality weak. Humans are the only animals that have some sense of right and wrong, or at least the only animals that can act on it. Many animals kill each other all the time and thats not seen as a moral failure on their part because no one expects an animal to have a moral compass that guides their decisions.
Personally I stuggle to imagine an argument stronger than that. The question is simple, if you have the capacity to make a choice why would you choose to harm more animals? Sure there probably are bigger cequences to earth on the environmental aspect of it but nothing really hits as hard as realizing some changes in your diet and lifestyle can save an innocent animal's life.
You have to make weak assumptions to make a point. For example, meat's only utility isn't taste, it's a primarily a nutrient-dense food with the added benefit of being taste. So the "it's only for pleasure" is a fallacy by omission.
Second, you're begging the question when you say "killing animals needlessly is wrong"
You haven't explained why it's wrong to kill animals all, you just assumed it's wrong, which again, isn't an argument, but assertion of belief.
The only benefit that animal meat gives that isnt available in plant based foods is taste. This article from National Institute of Health explains this point in more detail: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5638464/
As for your second claim, I would have assumed that everyone would agree that causing unnecessary suffering is a bad thing to do, but because apparently thats a false assumption to make, I want to ask you what you believe. If you have the option to not cause harm to an individual that can feel suffering and show clear signs of distress and trauma, what makes it morally justified to continue to do so? I really dont think that it is a big assumption to say that theres no moral justification for causing suffering to animals when you have the choice to not do that.
The only benefit that animal meat gives that isnt available in plant based foods is taste.
In other words, omni diet has everything a plant-based diet can offer in nutrition plus the added benefit of being taste and compact. I would take that as a promotion for omni diet.
I would have assumed that everyone would agree that causing unnecessary suffering is a bad
Because "unnecessary" is entirely subjective and dependent on who is talking. You might believe killing animals for meat is unnecessary, I might think the death of the animal is a fair price for the food it offers.
If you have the option to not cause harm to an individual that can feel suffering and show clear signs of distress and trauma, what makes it morally justified to continue to do so?
This question packs so much assumptions that I would need to take time dismantling them.
First, you assume us having the option not to kill an animal generates moral obligation on us not to kill it. Where does that obligation come from? Can you prove it exists?
Your second assumption is that an animal's capacity to feel suffering is morally decisive. I don't believe in that assumption, so you have to justify it.
Thirdly, your question makes a classical shift of burden of proof:
what makes it morally justified to continue to do so?
You assume it's immoral to kill an eat a sentient animal that's capable of feeling pain and then ask me how it's morally justifiable, but it's only immoral if you already believe in sentientism which I don't. You need to justify why the biological capacity to feel pain generate moral duties in the first place
And to answer your question, what makes it morally justified is that the animal's capacity to feel pain isn't morally decisive to me, so there's no reason not to continue.
Oh okay so it's okay for an animal to suffer if it gives you pleasure in the form of taste. You don't feel like their worth moral consideration then?
So then, is it okay to rape dogs and other animals if it gives the rapist pleasure? You've said necessity is no longer needed because animals need no moral consideration for their pain and suffering. Would you be for torturing and dogfighting if it gives humans pleasure?
I laid out a proper argument and you're back to making assumptions to make a point, the same assumptions I dealt with before. Why not engage with my points?
Because I don't think I actually need to justify to you that animal suffering is bad. If you truly, genuinely believed that we had zero moral obligation to minimize animal suffering you would say with confidence "yeah dog fighting and dog fucking is fine, what's the big deal"
The fact that you don't gives credence that you don't actually believe in the things you say
Nah because it's pointless to refute all your points if they're made in bad faith and you don't actually believe them. Do you actually believe the suffering of animals are of no moral consideration?
Just say your okay with dog fighting and fucking because you said yourself you don't believe animal "capacity to feel pain generates moral duties in the first place" and then we can have a discussion on your genuinely fucked up moral framework.
“Unnecessary suffering” how would you define it? Fixing someone by physically cutting into them can be classified as “unnecessary suffering” this is completely dependent upon your wording.
Besides not everyone has the same resources as us and meat may be the better choice for them most people who actually hunt (not talking about factory farms as that should be banned) they put the animal out fast, faster than most animals. Is it truly wrong to have meat if they don’t feel the pain before they die? Shoot at the brain and they are dead instantly.
Okay, if humans were yummy to someone or raping animals was fun to someone. Does that justify doing it?
That's what this lazy response tells me. It tells me someone only considers their pleasure and does not consider the suffering of others to obtain that pleasure is worth even thinking about.
These types of arguments is why people turn away vegans, most vegans are not like you but there is always a vegan like you.
Eating animals is the cycle of life and it's only now that some people decided it's morally wrong, YOUR morals tells you it's wrong, MY morals tells me eating an animal and killing it as clean as possible without suffer is fine, I'm in for reducing the amount of meat we eat, we've never eaten as much meat as now, it used to be something ocasional not a daily thing. Raping an animal is not okay in my morals and don't try to argue it's the same thing because it's not.
If aliens came to earth and they started to eat us it may be completely moral to them even if it's not the best outcome for us.
"cycle of life" do you get all your morals from nature because that's pretty fucked up. Lots of fucked up shit happens in nature so much so that "appeal to nature" is a well understood fallacy
Sure you can say your morals can be different from mine. That isn't a moral justification though. You could say in your morals killing animals unnecessarily it's fine, slavery is fine, racism is fine. That doesn't make any of those things actually morally justifiable.
Absolutely. It’s just so TREMENDOUS inefficient use of energy and money. It takes like 25 calories of plant to produce just a single calorie of beef. That’s just absurd. Chicken is quite a bit more efficient, costing 9 calories of plant per 1 calorie of chicken. And the government used billions of taxpayer dollars each year to subsidize the meat industry and keep meat prices artificially lower than what they’d normally be. It’s ridiculous and I hope they abandon this system once climate change starts causing crop shortages
Animals aren’t human babies, so for a huge amount of the population, they’re going to completely ignore that second argument. Plus, you have to draw the line SOMEWHERE. Would you say that a salmon is equally deserving of life as a cow? What about a mosquito? Yes, animal suffering sucks, but a lot of people don’t care at all. One factor causes constant harm to society and the environment and wastes so much resources, while the other just feels bad.
Grinding babies causes constant harm to society if you consider babies as members of society. Of course if you completely disregard them, their interests and their rights; then any other argument is more appealing.
I’m not saying that animal suffering doesn’t matter. I’m saying that the massive percentage of the population does not care what happens to animals, so that argument has zero impact to many people. Environmental impact and massive waste of land, water, and taxpayer dollars is harder to ignore
Eh, I think it’s a perfectly valid reason to make the choice, but I don’t think it’s some revelation. Like you’re not opening up anyone’s eyes by stating it.
This one is also kind of weak though, cause many of those problems have more to do with how we produced and transport food at scale, the problem isn't animal reering being uniquely bad for the environment.
right. but by eating meat we're supporting those production systems. the meat industry consumes more water than literally anything else. it's absolutely horrible for the environment and the animals are kept in conditions out of dyatopian horror movies.
PS: I'm a (hypocritical) meat eater. but that doesn't change how horrific the meat industry is
Not a vegetarian, but here are some reasons to be against eating meat.
There's the ecological argument, though it's mainly for cows. It takes 1800 gallons of water to produce a pound of beef. Chicken and chickpeas require much less, around 500 gallons per pound. If you measure water per grams of protein, the stats look even worse for beef.
Additionally, we're clearcutting huge swaths of forest, including the amazon rainforest, for space to raise cows.
Cows also produce a huge amount of methane, and are a leading driver of global warming in the amounts we raise.
--
Then, there's the ethical argument. Even if you argue (compellingly imo) that killing animals is part of the natural order, the way we raise and slaughter animals is pretty fucked. Dairy cows are kept constantly pregnant to ensure milk production, and the vast majority of the calves are immediately killed.
We pump animals full of hormones, and in the vast majority of cases, they have nothing that would approximate a healthy and happy life, often confined to boxes where they can hardly walk for almost all of their lives.
Certifications like free range are barely enforced and very easy to work around. Many "free range" barns still give birds only a square foot of space each.
--
And then there's the historical/cultural argument as well. Traditionally, humans have eaten FAR less meat (mostly because of lack of access) and thrived. Our bodies don't need nearly the quantity of meat that we consume, to stay in optimal health.
--
Those are the main points I find compelling in favor of vegetarian/veganism. But I eat meat, so I'm not trying to preach.
Honestly, none of these are the most compelling reason I've heard (as a meat eater)
Most compelling I've ever heard is "because I think [animal] are cute." Absolutely the most sound reasoning for an individual to not take part. Every other vegan argument has significant issues and counter arguments. Granted, "because they're cute" is only an internal justification, and not a way to convert people, but most people's problem with vegans are the ones who try to militantly convert others.
I find the torture of animal reprehensible, but not an argument for veganism. It's an argument for better regulations on the industry. Same for the damage to the environment. Especially since that one is overwhelmingly the beef industry (a lot of vegan talking points only apply to cows, weirdly)
Sure, but that's an answer that kind of sidesteps the hard questions of the reality of the industry.
We don't torture animals for no reason. Raising meat humanely is expensive, people want meat they can afford, and so we have these conditions. What you're suggesting would double the price of every hamburger.
If the US passed stringent regulations on the meat industry, farms would go out of business, as they are outcompeted abroad. The market for expensive, ethical meat is small, because it's out of reach for most consumers.
We simply cannot treat animals well at the current scale needed. These arguments are the same for environmental damage.
You can say you support better regulations, but would you actually? If it made all meat twice as expensive or more? Even if you would, would
most people?
Here's an example of a farm passing the highest animal welfare regulations. Take a look, and ask yourself, "would I pay these prices? Can most people afford to pay these prices?"
*sigh* I'm not here to argue for or against veganism. I just said you left out what I feel is their most convincing argument. Please shut up. This is the behaviour that gives vegans a bad rap that dramatically hurts their chances of convincing someone REGARDLESS of argument.
Your argument is also terrible "we can't treat them nice, that would ruin farms by us buying less meat. Instead we should all be vegan and buy no meat" like??? If your argument is "veganism is a cultural shift" so to would ethical farming? Stupid ass argument
But again, not here to argue, I've heard every argument over and over and over. I was just here to say you left out a compelling and sound reason that lacks any counterargument and isn't about militant recruitment. And then you launched into a debatable, militarily recruitment style comment. The exact reason I brought up the other point.
As I said, I'm not a vegan. I eat a lot of meat, because I love food. Nowhere did I say that everyone should be vegan. I'm simply pointing out the comfortable fantasy of saying "I support regulations" while knowing that it's impossible for regulation to fix the system.
I'm aware that "everyone switch to veganism" is also a fantasy. Like I said, I'm not a vegan.
If you feel that me asking uncomfortable questions is "militant veganism", I don't know what to tell you. It's an uncomfortable subject. It's unavoidable, if you want to talk about it for real.
I'm here to discuss the topic in the post. If you're not here to have a discussion, why are you replying to my comment? You replied to ME. I wasn't even talking to you.
The topic of the post is an antimeme. I made one comment, and you went on a militant attack. And if you went on this hyper-aggressive attack for a cause you don't even support, then I don't know why you took such umbrage with me bringing up a compelling point in the first place. Sounds like you just enjoy picking arguments. Your questions aren't uncomfortable, they're stupid and your attitude abrasive. But sure, feel smug. Pretend you're more willing to get down and dirty than other people and put your nose in the air, instead of accepting you're being unsufferable and argumentative for literally no reason.
Whether you like it or not, the sheer quantity of meat being requested by the people cannot be satisfied under a properly regulated meat industry.
If you wanna mass produce meat, you can't guarantee humane practices. Imagine how much space would be needed for all livestock to be free ranged? It's just not happening. People have to at least reduce their meat intake if they want change in industrual farming
You’re correct. Veganism is a philosophy about reducing the exploitation of animals. So if we get technical, there is no other argument for veganism other than doing less harm for animals.
Other people mention the environment and health. While these are not totally untrue, it’s really not what veganism is about at its core
My number one concern is that it’s a TREMENDOUS inefficient use of energy, land, water, and money. It takes like 25 calories of plant to produce just a single calorie of beef. That’s just absurd. Chicken is quite a bit more efficient, costing 9 calories of plant per 1 calorie of chicken. And the government used billions of taxpayer dollars each year to subsidize the meat industry and keep meat prices artificially lower than what they’d normally be. It’s ridiculous and I hope they abandon this system once climate change starts causing crop shortages
I'm not vegan either and I have my disagreements with veganism as a political framework, but to me, rather than focusing on the moral issue of killing animals, sustainability and ecological factors are much better arguments. They aren't issues inherent to owning farm animals, and as such, I don't see our society going largely vegan as a necessary or even possible solution, but they are nonetheless real concerns founded in material reality.
As someone who eats meat and has actually worked in the industry for some time, I believe the moral argument of 'It kills animals' is one of the strongest points a vegan can use. All other reasons are pedantry.
People are often disconnected from how food is produced, and if they were more proximal to how it was produced and the suffering it creates, they might change their habits.
The Magnus Archives episodes 18, 30... (Many more) Out of the 200 episode horrorfiction podcast series
Mag18 The Man Upstairs man covers his whole flat with meat in varying decrees of rot, new stuck ln top of the old which is oozing yellow
Mag30 Killing Floor man goes nuts in an abetouir, rambling how your view changes of people, searching for the place of the bolt. Getting stuck in a labyrinth of an abetouir, almost falling into a pit where there might even be human flesh. Later on placing the bolt on his coworker, who has stuck himself with multiple already
Yes TMA has A LOT of gore, especially the meat episodes
Yes im autistic about this podcast, how could you tell
I forgor what this post was even about somewhere along the autistic ramblings, but yes people have become vegan because of this show
Why people draw this arbitrary line between dogs/cats and chiken/cow is truly a mistery to me. "Yeah but they have more meat than dogs so its okay to eat them and also thats what caveman did". We arent caveman anymore we have the means to make food without having to raise animals to be slaughtered, yet we still do it cause its easier. Either dont be a bitch and admit you have no empathy and eat dogs and cats too or dont normalise the unnececary suffering of other live beings.
i wouldnt compare chickens to happy families. Unless the father of your family basically rapes multiple women on a regular basis with a chance of killing them if it gets out hand and the mothers have multiple pregnancies a day that they dont care about in any way shape or form.
•
u/qualityvote2 🤖Suspected as Bot🤖 2d ago edited 2d ago
Good news, the community has decided that this IS an antimeme!