this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2024
147 points (96.2% liked)
Asklemmy
43909 readers
869 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I assume you agree o the general statement "Animals shouldn't be killed for pleasure."
If you then have two options for food, one including animal meat and one without, all other things being equal, even nutrition wise, then how is it not "for pleasure" to chose the option with meat?
Killing for pleasure implies hunting for sport.
Chopping up a cow so that tons of people can buy its meat is different than someone hunting bears for sport and leaving the corpse where it lands.
??? lmao no it doesn't.
Sorry that your metaphor didn't land with everyone.
for most people making taht decision does not involve killing anything. both options have already been harvested and presented.
"Harvested" xD nice euphemism
how else do you describe gathering farmed food?