Imagine I have two choices: end world hunger, or end world hunger and kick a puppy. If I choose to end world hunger but also kick a puppy...well I'm kinda a dick, right? Ultimately I did a very good thing ending word hunger, so on balance, my actions are "net positive." But the choice I actually made was to kick a puppy.

Now, I need to eat. So I have a choice: eat yummy food and don't kill an animal, or eat yummier food and do kill and animal. The choice I'm effectively faced with is, "kill an animal for better taste."

It's totally up to you to decide if that is a good choice for you personally.

If course it's not always so simple, and there are financial, cultural, and health reasons that complicate this. But for some folks (like myself) that's kinda how I view it.

[–] kaffiene@lemmy.world -2 points 3 months ago

Oh I fully agree that not eating meat is the better alternative. I just thing the meme was stupid. There's plenty of valid reasons to promote eating less meat without making up strawmen