this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2023
1235 points (90.2% liked)

Memes

45172 readers
2485 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
[–] Pagliacci@lemmy.ml 66 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)
[–] Duke_Nukem_1990@feddit.de 55 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] pazukaza@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 year ago

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

[–] ziltoid101@lemmy.world 50 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)
[–] MiddleWeigh@lemmy.world 42 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.

[–] Zozano@aussie.zone 55 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)
[–] HiddenLayer5@lemmy.ml 41 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 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?

[–] s_s@lemmy.one 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You consider humans superior in intellect and ability compared to all other animals

Does he?

[–] HiddenLayer5@lemmy.ml 20 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Isn't that usually the argument that anti-vegans use? That we're the top predator due to our intelligence and technology and therefore we have an intrinsic right to the lives of other animals?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] artaxthehappyhorse@lemmy.ml 39 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] do_not_pm_me@thelemmy.club 11 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Only humans that eat other humans.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] django@discuss.tchncs.de 38 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)
[–] BachenBenno@feddit.de 34 points 1 year ago (69 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.

load more comments (69 replies)
[–] HaleEndGrad@lemmygrad.ml 34 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.

[–] Rhoeri@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago (37 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.

[–] Indie@lemmy.fmhy.ml 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What's wrong with fish eating plastics we dump in the waters. Are they anti plastic or something?????

/S

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (36 replies)
[–] tweeks@feddit.nl 28 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)
[–] Chickerino@feddit.nl 27 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

[–] Vespair@lemm.ee 15 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)
[–] debil@lemmy.world 22 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@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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

[–] Rachelhazideas@lemmy.world 15 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)
[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 12 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)
[–] hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 22 points 1 year ago (21 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@lemmy.world 17 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)
load more comments (20 replies)
[–] TommySalami@lemmy.world 13 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)
[–] theamazing0@discuss.tchncs.de 13 points 1 year ago

Because we don't need to

load more comments
view more: next ›