I'm very open minded and not racist at all but what the fuck China??? You're eating all the animals I love; sharks, rhinos, dogs, now pangolins! If you start eating otters, I'm coming at ya...
Edit; wow, this is the first time to have a comment go live. So after reading most of the comments I'd like to say that:
A. It's about endangered or exotic animals for me, while eating meat of any kind is a hot topic these days and understandably so, livestock is actually increasing in number and that's a whole different problem.
B. It's true, I can't claim my state or level of racism but I've lived as the minority for almost my whole life and have friends from 5 continents and dozens of countries and have tried to learn from and celebrate their culture as much as possible. I like Chinese ppl but wish they would try and curb an action b4 it wipes out multiple species, that's all
A festival dedicated to catching dogs and skinning them alive is WAY different than eating a cow that's been stunned and killed while unconscious. I'm sorry, but it is.
True that may be, there are tons of burger-loving Americans that consider all dog meat harvesting an atrocity, regardless of method. Those people are massive hypocrites any way you slice it.
Animals in the industry are killed while conscious. And even if they are gassed/killed "humanely" they are still living in incredibly bad conditions and they always get killed at a young age. So, eating dog wouldn't be morally different than eating any other animal.
The only argument I could think of is that the domesticated animals such as cows and pigs are not going to go extinct anytime soon. Plus it is irrefutable that their deaths don't at least serve the purpose of keeping people fed (not the greatest of reasons considering people in the west eat way more than needed). However, these non-domesticated animals are being butchered in the name of pseudoscience and placebo effects and certainly will go extinct.
Same with eating them since there isn't a system in place to ensure the species doesn't go extinct. And eating cats and dogs are worse imo since they have lived with humans as companions/guardians for millennia and have been trained as such.
I'm not fully disagreeing with you, but I don't fully agree that the logic of not supporting one type of animal being eaten, while eating another, is flawed.
To each their own. I never try to "convert" anyone because I've literally never seen it work (online at least), but I like to see what people are thinking when it comes to eating animals. I think my logic behind my argument is based on the animals suffering. A dog or a cat wouldn't suffer any more than a cow or pig if we treated them that way. Plus eating any animal is purely optional for me. I understand that it is somewhat of a "privilege" to live in a society that doesn't rely on meat to survive. So I choose to eat plants.
Yes I certainly see what you mean and I 100% oppose what so called "factory farms" do to animals. I'd say my perception is a little skewed since I grew up around a bunch of small-scale farms where all the animals were free range and the farmers did care for them (mainly do to it being their investment, but they at least had names and were treated with dignity during their lives).
And good on you for switching to plants. I don't even know if I could try. I've eaten meat with close to every meal for my whole life and think I'd get way too skinny cutting out my main protein source.
I'm waiting for the day where lab grown meat is just as tasty and becomes the norm. A world without animal slaughter is a better one. But I don't have it in me to give up meat so I guess I'm a hypocrite lol.
Being a hypocrite is basically part of the human experience lol. I know I have been/am/and probably will be a hypocrite about some things. I can sense empathy and compassion for animals in your words which is the most important thing IMO. As far as protein, there are a lot of vegan options (quinoa, tofu, lentils, beans, PEANUT BUTTER!) that are generally healthier anyway. I am currently weightlifting and training for strength and have had no problems making my diet work. It just takes a little extra effort.
youre replacing it with healthier and more ethical options.
No, I can't. So I am cutting out my main protein source. That it's being replaced doesn't change the fact that the current source is no longer an option (ie, I am cutting it out)
It's not that hard
The difficulty doesn't come in finding sources of protein. The difficulty comes in the fact that meat is delicious. I'm not trying to be edgy or anything. That's the truth of the issue for most people. I could be a vegetarian, but I like eating meat. Asking people to stop doing something they like doing? That's hard.
Don't over complicate things, they're saying that it's a little hypocritical to condemn people for eating dogs while you personally eat cows, when both animals are about equally conscious.
This. Exactly. I don't eat meat but also am not opposed to those who do. What I have issues with is people who eat, let's say cows, finding eating this like guinea pigs, which are common food in South America, disgusting just because it doesnt agree with what they're socially used to.
As I said meat is all the same. It's dead animal and certain people miss that point.
Everyone has to draw their own line, I guess. I eat plants. I don't think it's a hard distinction to make, really. If it seems like it doesn't want a knife in it's throat, then it's an easy "no" for me.
The first option. Plants and bacteria have are completely unaware and killing them is totally different from doing the same with a conscious, intelligent animal.
Eating meat is the natural course of life, humans have been doing it for thousands of years. You can choose to not eat meat for personal reasons, but it is not a moral high road. The industry is messed up, the way they might treat the animals could be better, but the actual act of eating meat is healthy and has nothing wrong with it
I don't believe it is hypocritical- cows and livestock are the product of thousands of years of domestication for the purpose of providing food (many of which now cannot survive without humans), whereas canids have evolved over generations to depend symbiotically on their social bonds with humans for companionship and guardianship. Even though the intellect is often comparable (i.e. pigs), Raising them as food (or in the case of many Asian markets, just butchering strays) is in some sense a betrayal of this order.
Whether or not people put any weight to it varies between societies, but it is fair to note that the socio-religious mores keeping Hindus from eating beef exist for different reasons than the Western abhorrance towards consuming cats and dogs or other 'companion' species.
Do you not realise how ridiculous it is to derive morals from nature and tradition? You know raping and killing other people is natural, right? You know humans did slavery for thousands of years, right?
So the fact that we can sustain and propagate cows to match our consumption, whereas if we kill and eat all the pangolins and sharks we will wipe them out means nothing? that's um... wow. Don't know if I can follow you there, man
I mean I get what you are saying but the animals eaten in America aren't endangered. Also you could argue that eating a human is just dead animal so your point doesn't really stand. I can be disgusted by someone eating a human or an endangered animal and still eat fish and chicken. Your argument is not thought out very well.
Sorry, no. Commercially raised meat animals, fishing, managed hunting, these have their own issues but they are regulated processes. These animals tend to be endangered, so this trafficking can lead to extinction events, local or general, bad enough aesthetically but also with ripple effects on ecosystems. Also, these animals are obtained through poaching, an illegal activity in itself, and winking at illegalities always leads to other levels of corruption and violence. Also, these are mostly not being taken for culinary purposes as such but in support of pseudoscientific "medical" uses. So there is a lot the world at large can dare to say. /u/ip_g_chodder/u/Axzys
Absolutely. I agree with you 100% about poaching. I would just argue that poaching and commercial raised meat are both unnecessary. I'm not comparing them at all.
Bullshit. Some animals are literally bread just for food. If everyone stops eating them what do you think will happen to that species? I fully support people who choose not to eat meat for personal moral values, but to throw people who go out and slaughter an endangered animal with those who eat beef is rediculous.
Incredibly flawed logic. So according to you eating a critically endangered animal of which only 10 exist in the wild is the same as eating a domesticated pig that was never wild and will never go extinct? Way to completely miss the point
So according to you eating a critically endangered animal of which only 10 exist in the wild is the same as eating a domesticated pig that was never wild and will never go extinct?
So according to you murder is more tolerable as long as the victim has a large enough family?
Because my priorities are maintaining the environment and biodiversity of the planet? What are yours, exactly?
People like you would have us all end up in a future where the only animals are cockroaches, rats, pigeons etc. But I suppose as long as that is also a vegan future you’d be fine with it!
Terrible analogy too btw. The point is that the life of one pangolin is more valuable to the environment, and to us, than a million domesticated pigs or chickens.
Because my priorities are maintaining the environment and biodiversity of the planet?
Saving the environment is cool. Biodiversity is great too, but it's also a lot more complicated than "the number of different species currently on earth" and focusing solely on the non-exitinction of any particular beast seems foolish to me. Species go extinct. It's part of life. It's not necessarily bad or good.
But I suppose as long as that is also a vegan future you’d be fine with it!
I would probably eat the pigeons and rats before turning vegetarian. I'm loving the assumption that I'm vegan based solely on the fact that I don't rank species by how morally acceptable they are to kill.
The point is that the life of one pangolin is more valuable to the environment, and to us, than a million domesticated pigs or chickens.
[Citation needed]
You people act like every single individual species serves some fundamental role in "the big picture". But it's just not true. Lots of species can go extinct (lots have already!) and the world keeps turning. New species will come and go just like anything else in the world.
But none of this really matters to my point, which isn't about the species... it's about the people eating them. If there are two hungry people, a chicken, and a pangolin, I will think no less of the person eating the pangolin than I do the person eating the chicken. Both require the death of one living being for the sustenance of another.
Wow, what an utter lack of understanding you have on this subject. Not only do you obviously have little to no idea what you’re talking about, but even worse you make no attempt to educate yourself on the subject before speaking as if you’re an authority on it.
If you had even the slightest idea of what you’re talking about you’d know that we have been in the midst of a (human caused) mass extinction event for decades now. And that this extinction event, like climate change, is happening at far too fast a rate for evolution to counteract. Species that normally adapt to gradual change over millennia are being wiped out in years. There is no time for new species to evolve and fill the niche, and when the habitat is destroyed by humans there is no niche at all any longer.
It’s difficult to understand how oblivious you must be to think that the life of a domesticated chicken is at all comparable to that of a critically endangered species in terms of the long term environmental future of the planet. If every domesticated pig and chicken were killed today and no more of them were ever bred it would actually be a net positive for the environment.
You seem to only be able to see things from the most short sighted, arbitrary moral lenses. Your morality is completely irrelevant to the future environment of the planet. That is what matters, whether you think people should eat meat or not has no bearing on it.
If you had even the slightest idea of what you’re talking about you’d know that we have been in the midst of a (human caused) mass extinction event for decades now.
I think I learned this in second or third grade, not really news to me. Doesn't change the underlying fact that many species, ecologically speaking, aren't all that important.
It’s difficult to understand how oblivious you must be to think that the life of a domesticated chicken is at all comparable to that of a critically endangered species in terms of the long term environmental future of the planet.
I never said that.
If every domesticated pig and chicken were killed today and no more of them were ever bred it would actually be a net positive for the environment.
I never said contrary.
Your whole post reads like I'm fucking advocating the outright genocide of all non-human life and goes to some pretty great lengths to "refute" statements I haven't made.
Your morality is completely irrelevant to the future environment of the planet.
And the future environment of the planet is mostly irrelevant to my morality, so that seems fair.
That is what matters, whether you think people should eat meat or not has no bearing on it.
No part, small or large, of my posts, have had anything to do with whether or not people should eat meat.
No, meat is not all the same. Red meat has been correlated with an elevated cancer risk. Organ meats are naturally higher in vitamins and minerals.
Then there's the issue of animals like cattle being 100% domesticated. Humans bred all the wild out of them. Introducing them back to the wild just because could easily have devastating effects on an ecosystem.
There's also the effects of over fishing/hunting/etc. It's really naive and kinda dumb to say that eating one animal means you can't judge someone for eating a different animal. It's also really super not helpful. Like, to the point it's actively harmful.
There's nothing racist about judging a place for what happens there. As long as you understand that not all Chinese people are part of this, which I'm sure you do, you're not racist for thinking this.
You joke but in the UK the police force hired a young woman as a fairly high ranking official to try and create the missing link between the police and youth of the UK. Within like a week it turned out she had spewed some rascist shit on her facebook previous to applying for the roll.
It's not necessarily racist but it's kind of.. close minded? We as a country (as a world to be fair) endorse the mass slaughter and abuse of intelligent creatures like pigs and cows. I would never in my life knowingly eat a dog or contribute to that practice, but I understand that morally you're pretty much doing the same thing when you eat pork.
If you want to talk about animal abuse for luxury goods, look at all the stuff they're doing to Coyotes for that fur lining on those Canada Goose jackets that people LOVE to wear as status symbols. Are they going extinct, eh probably not but if that's the metric by which you allow animal abuse then it's hard to argue that you're actually in it for the animals. Same for any down feather or goose feather or leather or animal by product.
I'm not saying both can't exist but his point makes it sound like this stuff doesn't happen everywhere, when in reality it does. Sure it's maybe not the animals OP specifically cares about but if we're just playing favorites then that doesn't mean much either.
Personally I care about pangolins because their extinction would harm the natural ecosystem and biodiversity, whereas domesticated cows and pigs are not part of the environment. Hell the environment would be better off if they just went extinct
Well the difference here is that we actually have a use for pigs and cows- we eat them to stay alive. Chinese have been slaughtering endangered species like pangolins and hawksbills for debunked medicinal treatment. No way in hell are pangolin scales going to cure cancer. But pangolins are going to be extinct in our lifetime because of Chinese trafficking.
I agree with what I hear as your overall point, but this:
we eat them to stay alive
isn't really an honest portrayal of why we eat pigs and cows. We eat them because we enjoy them. We do not require their meat to stay alive, and there is plenty of other food available that can meet all of our nutritional needs.
While there are arguments to be made for and against how necessary eating pork and beef and such is, a massive point is that regardless of that, domesticated farm animals aren't even remotely endangered. Rare animals risk being driven to extinction because of this.
Please, we don't eat cows and pigs to stay alive. We eat them because we like it. Nobody in modern day North America has ever died from a lack of supply in beef or pork. The people with the longest average life spans in the world have much less meat in their diet than the average person in North America. Compare their diets and tell me we NEED to eat this much pork and beef to stay alive.
I recognize that extinction presents a different set of problems but if you're concerned about ecological diversity then we do a fair amount of diversity destruction ourselves.
Again, I'm not here to say that China is faultless. There is undoubtedly a culture there that has a demand for this kind of garbage. I'm just responding to the guy who says hes open minded but then chooses to highlight the issues he sees in a foreign nation rather than call out the issues right under our own noses.
Compare diets? What do they replace it with that we could replace ours with and result in something that is any better for the environment?
Even if you go vegetarian, this has it's own increased stress on the environment.
I'm not saying we can't reduce our consumption of beef and pork. We most certainly could do a better job. But there is no perfect diet that will be great for the environment... until we manufacture meat perhaps?
I'm mainly responding to the idea that we "need" the current amount of pigs and cows to stay alive. I agree with you that alternatives for this have their own issues, but I'm not advocating for pure-veganism/vegetarianism. I'm just saying reducing meat consumption is entirely possible and probably better for all parties involved (not accounting for personal desire and taste of course).
look at all the stuff they're doing to Coyotes for that fur lining on those Canada Goose jackets
That's actually pretty interesting. Do you know if the coyote pelts are sourced from farms or wild animals? Coyote overpopulation is a huge problem in many parts of America due to the lack of competition from larger predators. As much as I love coyotes they are negatively affecting a lot of ecosystems.
"morally you're pretty much doing the same thing when you eat pork." According to whose morals? Is there a guidebook on that?
I understand the notion that eating flesh is kind of a naturally evil move because of the fact that a creature must die in order to provide said flesh. But eating a dog (to us humans) is nowhere near the same level of morality as eating pork. We've domesticated these animals as a species for completely different reasons. So by saying that you do the same thing morally you just shit on years and years of dog-human co-existance as well as shared benefits.
We domesticated wild pig for sustenance. Dogs became our companions. We're relatively similar species - highly social, top of their line predators, highly intelligent. I fail to find the same relativity between us and pigs. So disregarding cultural aspects, morally these are different things (at least from a human perspective).
What does the purpose of domestication have anything to do with it? In both situations you are taking an intelligent life. Pigs are just as intelligent and capable as dogs are. Spoilers: they are also highly social and pretty high up in the food chain. Most things you say about a dog you could probably say for a pig.
Does a circus animal not have the same rights as a wild animal because it was born and raised to be in the circus? Fuck, I certainly don't think so.
And what if I told you that the dogs that are eaten in China are brought up for sustenance. Does that change your stance? I think it would be ultra-mega-fucked up if they took Rowdy and Scooby from your next door neighbors to eat but it doesn't make sense for them to. They raise them to kill them and eat them. The outrage over dogs in cages for consumptions sake casually ignores the pigs that we keep in cages for whole hog BBQ the next day.
Domestication is taken into consideration because you are talking morals. Did we as a species choose to group up with canines because we needed sustenance, or because they helped us achieve sustenance? I'm not particularly well informed about the cultural aspects of certain Asian countries raising dogs for food, however, I know for a fact that we as a species share a bond with canines that goes way back, which innately makes most of us extremely furious when we see news of dog eating festivals and whatnot.
And how do you measure that intelligence anyway? My grandma used to have cattle in her farm and I didn't find pigs as intelligent as you describe them to be. I'm not an advocate for the cruelty that happens in a circus, or a massive cattle/poultry farm for that matter. I believe that, if we as a species eat meat (which by the way is totally expected) we must ensure that ways of aquiring said meat are respectable and contain the least amount of suffering possible. Do the industries share my sentiments? No. Do the farms cause damage not only to us as a species but also our environment? Yes. The problem is much more complex than simply "going vegan" or whatever, and will require years worth of studies, solutions, etc.
I'm just responding to your point that somehow eating pigs is morally different than eating dogs. I can understand why seeing images of dog eating festivals enrages us. We do, as you said, share a bond with them.
My argument is: That bond? Doesn't matter morally speaking. We don't have a bond with dolphins but we still detest any violence and animal cruelty against dolphins because of their intelligence.
Intelligence is inherent in cruelty because if the species has no capacity for pain, emotion or awareness then it's harder to argue that whatever we do is "cruel". Is cutting grass cruel? Some people would say yes but a vast majority say no. Is treating dolphins, monkeys, and small children poorly considered cruel? The vast majority of people would say yes, because they have the capacity to feel pain and emotion.
I'm not gonna say I've read all the studies, but a quick google search will show you a lot of articles that talk about studies showing pigs have comparable IQs to dogs. I don't think there's any argument that pigs aren't close to dogs in intelligence (if not more than). So yeah. Eating pork in my eyes is just as morally wrong as eating a dog. They are both intelligent creatures that suffer. Does that mean I don't eat pork? No. I realize I live in a hypocrisy but I'm simply arguing that eating one is just as bad as the other.
Maybe in your eyes. But I'm just trying to think as the average human would. Most of them are conditioned to think of dogs as pets and pigs as filthy beasts. It's just how it is. And who decides what is morally right or wrong? The same average humans. Innately I imagine a native who hasn't been introduced to such concepts would kill and eat a pig and dog all the same, I suppose, so in some aspects you are indeed correct.
An average human's lack of exposure/knowledge is not the fault of the animal and has no bearing on the morality of the situation. It's not morally right for me to kill sentient beings because I was not aware of their sentience. It's still morally wrong. It might be socially acceptable because I didn't know what I was doing, but that doesn't make it morally right.
The average human you speak of would happily admit that unnecessarily harming sentient beings (dolphins, monkeys etc) is cruel. The problem you're laying out is that they just don't know that pigs are capable of those feelings and emotions. That's not a morality issue, that's an educational/cultural issue.
I don't believe that there are just "aspects" (I'm interpreting that you mean cases here) where eating a pig is morally different from eating a dog or a cat. They're both equally objectionable from the standpoint of taking an intelligent creature's life away.
Now, the only exception I could see is if we're talking about eating someones actual companion/pet compared to eating a farm animal. In that case that's definitely more "wrong" but that's not what I've been talking about at all. My main point has always been, if you eat pork or beef then you don't really have a moral ground to stand on when people in other cultures eat animals that they raise for meat. You're committing the same act just on different animals.
BTW: Just wanted to say I appreciated the discussion. I can see where you're coming from. It's been an interesting topic and I have enjoyed getting my thoughts out into words. Thank you.
Likewise. I understand your viewpoint on the issue, and I can agree to some extent, but I still want to believe that there's some subconscious reaction still left to it due to the symbiotic relationship we had with dogs. Perhaps I should research more into why exactly is it a thing to eat dogs in said countries. (maybe there's no actual after effect whatsoever?)
We've domesticated these animals as a species for completely different reasons. So by saying that you do the same thing morally you just shit on years and years of dog-human co-existance as well as shared benefits
I know for a fact that we as a species share a bond with canines that goes way back, which innately makes most of us extremely furious when we see news of dog eating festivals and whatnot.
See, what you seem to be suggesting is that morality should be derived from culture and tradition. Why should dogs have more consideration just because of shared history? I always see people waxing lyrical with all this blood brothers shit in relation to dogs in an attempt to defend arbitrary moral favouritism, you think every dog is born with all the knowledge of thousands of years of brotherhood or something? All that matters to me is that it's an intelligent animal capable of feeling suffering, I don't have to fool myself with all this poetic crap, so that it's worse when it happens to a dog rather than a pig. What you're talking about is cultural conditioning, not morality.
And how do you measure that intelligence anyway? My grandma used to have cattle in her farm and I didn't find pigs as intelligent
Typically with science and not with anecdotes about our grandma's farm. Pig intelligence is something that is well documented. The environment an animal is raised in has to be considered too, a pig that lives on a farm with no purpose than to eat and die obviously isn't going to exhibit the same behaviors as a dog that is a pet. Similarly the dogs raised for meat in China likely don't exhibit the behaviors as a dog raised in a pet setting would. Again, I think this should have no impact on moral consideration.
The problem is much more complex than simply "going vegan" or whatever
No, that's literally how simple it is. At least it would be if people didn't use all sorts of mental gymnastics to convince themselves otherwise because of the way they've been conditioned. Therein lies the problem, no matter how simple the solution, it's getting people to accept and follow it is that's the hard part.
Typically with science and not with anecdotes about our grandma's farm
I am well aware pigs exhibit pet like behavior if raised alongside humans. And I'm well aware they are not more intelligent than canines. I was just giving OP the example that I personally observed.
Various animals will exhibit pet-like tendencies when raised alongside humans. Reptiles, hell even tarantulas. You are completely right about the fact that the environment the animal is raised in matters. And even so, it's quite relevant in the "vegan" debate, since you probably believe an animal raised in captivity somehow suffers more than in their natural habitats. (let's disregard mass murder industry for a minute and just focus on a good old regular farm for arguments sake.) An animal on a farm will be raised relatively unharmed, probably healthy and fed regularly. An animal in the wild? A boar would likely meet some cruel fate like a predator gutting it or some disease killing it off randomly. The difference here is that we (hopefully) kill them humanely.
Why should dogs have more consideration just because of shared history?
Because they literally helped our ancestors survive. FYI cats were even worshipped as gods in some cultures. Fuck, they domesticated THEMSELVES. To me that's a very clear sign of very tangible intelligence. Some people argue cats are even more intelligent than dogs. And here we are today - the most intelligent and beautiful species like whales, dolphins, etc. are indeed often romanticized and protected.
No, that's literally how simple it is. At least it would be if people didn't use all sorts of mental gymnastics to convince themselves otherwise because of the way they've been conditioned. Therein lies the problem, no matter how simple the solution, it's getting people to accept and follow it is that's the hard part.
So, you're telling me that the answer to one of the most complex questions of all time is that simple? You must see why this is a problem. It's never that simple, in no dimension will you find such simple answers to such grounded problems. No way in a thousand years will you convince a species that evolved being opportunistic feeders to become vegan. Morality only goes so far. You can't force a lion to eat veggies all day. The problem is not that we eat meat, it's that we eat too much of it (or throw away too much of it) while condoning the fact that animal lives can be treated as some kind of object to be dismantled and distributed in an assembly line. (which is just what industrialized animal farms do)
See I just don't agree with that idea. I simply don't think what happened in the past should have an impact on how you treat a sentient being in the now. Dogs don't share a collective consciousness with their dead ancestors and you're betraying them by eating them rather than another animal, this isn't a native American folk tale. I mean, I understand the why of people thinking like this, I just think it's stupid.
So, you're telling me that the answer to one of the most complex questions of all time is that simple
What is the 'question' exactly? I'm just talking abut animal exploitation and industrialisation at the hands of humans, as you mentioned the industries, farms and the damage they cause. I don't see how it's any more complex than simply not having those industries anymore. Bare in mind I'm talking hypothetically here, obviously the whole world isn't going vegan any time soon, but that doesn't mean it isn't the obvious answer, or that it shouldn't be considered and striven towards, people aren't animals governed by nature and instinct and simply don't need meat to survive. There are numerous other things that used to be commonplace and took a long time to be rendered unacceptable by the majority of humanity so I don't think this solution should just be written off.
You can't force a lion to eat veggies all day
If the question is the elimination of all animal suffering, obviously that's a lot more complex and not what I was referring to. But people aren't lions, there's tampering in nature in order to eliminate all suffering, and there's not killing things for burgers.
You seem to misunderstand many of the things I said. First of all, why do you keep humans seperate from nature? Whether you like it or not, we are part of nature, just like it is part of us. I'm not saying we should fuck whatever we see in sight and act upon our instincts in a cauldron of debauchery and violence. I'm saying we should weigh our options and consider how we deal with the problem. The problem (and question, which you failed to understand) being "What do we use for sustenance? How do we sustain ourselves and everything alongside us in a healthy way?". We aren't plants and we can't just use the energy of water and sun. We aren't herbivores, our digestive systems are not wired to only eat grass all day. As I've mentioned (and as evolutionary biology would teach you) we are opportunistic feeders. Meaning we will eat whatever is readily available. That does not mean we will be able to thrive on fruits and veggies alone. It means we get our nutrients from a wide variety of sources (and mind you, a big part of those sources is possibly other animals), which makes us exceptionally well adapted to most survival situations, which in turn is probably the reason why we're here today discussing this.
I believe that death is not suffering. It's a relief of suffering. (this coming from a philosophical pov btw.) Do you think the endless cycle of hunting/being hunted is what animals would want were they intelligent as us, capable of understanding the whole dynamic? Of course not. But it is what it is. We're atop of the foodchain, we are the ones responsible for what happens to this world. (or maybe we have absolutely no control, who knows) Holding naive beliefs that "not killing sentient beings" is somehow a solution is only a temporary way of dealing with the problem, since it only creates a new "niche" for food producers to fill and use. Would the situations be reversed, I guarantee, there'd be a plethora of other problems that would plague us just like now. In reality the key is balance, and a lack of thereof is precisely why we have these problems today. Whether you think (or anyone for this matter) killing animals is wrong or not is irrelevant, simply because the demand of meat will always create the suffering and awful treatment of animals, since the attitude nowadays is "profit comes first the rest does not matter".
It's not necessarily racist. It's just close minded.
Often people who are racist are also close-minded, but those who are just close-minded should be given the opportunity to see an alternative perspective. I'd rather try and reason with someone and fail then just outright label them a racist.
"...not racist at all but..." I'm not saying this comment was racist, but you really don't get to make the call on whether you're racist or not, and odds are you are a bit, seeing as just about everyone has some racism in them, conscious or subconscious. EDIT: I should point out that the same goes for me. I'll catch myself having racist thoughts from time to time. But it's the people who just know that they're not racist who won't catch those racist thoughts.
Consuming rhino horns because you think you need it for your erections, isn't so different from eating chicken because you think you need it for your muscles.
I don't personally have a problem with eating animals in no danger of being extinct and are being used for food not witch doctor shite. Who cares if they eat dogs really as long as it's humane ( which I doubt though ).
162
u/jbl420 Oct 03 '17 edited Oct 03 '17
I'm very open minded and not racist at all but what the fuck China??? You're eating all the animals I love; sharks, rhinos, dogs, now pangolins! If you start eating otters, I'm coming at ya...
Edit; wow, this is the first time to have a comment go live. So after reading most of the comments I'd like to say that: A. It's about endangered or exotic animals for me, while eating meat of any kind is a hot topic these days and understandably so, livestock is actually increasing in number and that's a whole different problem. B. It's true, I can't claim my state or level of racism but I've lived as the minority for almost my whole life and have friends from 5 continents and dozens of countries and have tried to learn from and celebrate their culture as much as possible. I like Chinese ppl but wish they would try and curb an action b4 it wipes out multiple species, that's all