this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2023
1537 points (99.8% liked)

Memes

45271 readers
2048 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 81 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)
[–] BachenBenno@feddit.de 79 points 1 year ago (1 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.

[–] notenoughbutter@lemmy.ml 42 points 1 year ago (38 children)

taste

what about vitamins? proteins and other nutrients

like omega 3 fatty acid majorly found in fishes

[–] agoseris@lemm.ee 53 points 1 year ago (10 children)

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.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Azathoth@feddit.de 39 points 1 year ago (20 children)

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.

load more comments (20 replies)
load more comments (36 replies)
[–] Duke_Nukem_1990@feddit.de 70 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] pazukaza@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 year ago

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

[–] debil@lemmy.world 58 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 48 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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

[–] Rachelhazideas@lemmy.world 24 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)
[–] spicysoup@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

https://carnism.org/carnism/

you lighten up on the animal exploitation maybe?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 year ago (21 children)

Yeah, the preferred term is bloodmouth

load more comments (21 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ziltoid101@lemmy.world 58 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 53 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 63 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 52 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 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?

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] artaxthehappyhorse@lemmy.ml 43 points 1 year ago (5 children)

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

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Rhoeri@lemmy.world 42 points 1 year ago (38 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.

load more comments (38 replies)
[–] django@discuss.tchncs.de 42 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)
[–] HaleEndGrad@lemmygrad.ml 39 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.

[–] hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 30 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 24 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)
[–] 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 17 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)
[–] tweeks@feddit.nl 27 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)
[–] sickpusy@sh.itjust.works 18 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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...

[–] SQL_InjectMe@partizle.com 27 points 1 year ago

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

[–] door_in_the_face@feddit.nl 21 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] necrxfagivs@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Underwaterbob@lemm.ee 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I suppose it was only a matter of time before the vegans vs meat eaters oozed on over from Reddit.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] theamazing0@discuss.tchncs.de 17 points 1 year ago

Because we don't need to

[–] chase_what_matters@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Can someone explain this template to me?

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›