Agreed, if a bear can eat a person why can't I eat a person?!
Memes
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
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.
taste
what about vitamins? proteins and other nutrients
like omega 3 fatty acid majorly found in fishes
There are plenty of plant sources of Omega 3. Flax seeds, walnuts, soybeans, and canola oil all have decent amounts of omega 3 in them. As for protein, legumes generally have a bunch.
Really, the only thing a vegan needs to supplement is B12, but even that gets added to a bunch of stuff like breakfast cereals and plant milks if you consume those.
You can take them as supplements. It's the same for your body. Oh and you are already doing that, because they give supplements to the animals they raise and kill, we are just eliminating the middleman.
OP will be real dangerous when he learns fish also don't ask for consent.
They don't? I've been wasting my time.
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
I'm sorry, but I laughed at carnist. Lighten up.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
How come fish can eat their own offspring but we can't do the same to ours?
Fish eating fish doesn't lead to ecological disturbance. Humans have put multiple species on the verge of extinction.
Humans have put multiple species on the verge of extinction.
That is a slight understatement:
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.
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.
Buy a man eat fish, he day, teach fish man, to a lifetime
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
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.
The best argument against vegans is always the fact that plants also are living beings. Now if you are gonna create hierarchy of living beings to justify your food consumption, well...
Cows don’t photosynthesize they eat a shit ton of plants to make a tiny amount of meat so if you really care about plants you would eat the plants directly and skip the middlemen that waste 90% of the plant matter
Plants aren't sentient though, that's a pretty good reason to put them lower on the hierarchy of living beings that are morally ok to eat. And it's quite likely that fewer plants die for a vegan diet than for a standard diet, as animals need a lot of feed to produce meat, eggs and dairy. Some percentage of the plant protein, fats, and carbs will always be lost along the way when we feed them to animals, so eating those plants directly is more efficient.
Plants aren't sentient and you need more plants to feed a cow (and then eat the cow) than if you just eat plant-based.
I suppose it was only a matter of time before the vegans vs meat eaters oozed on over from Reddit.
Because we don't need to