Because if not, then you are putting your own mere 20 minutes of pleasure higher than entire lives of tight, confined, indoor, away from their children and parents, raped, drugged, mutilated while alive of animals. There is no chance that if an animal was living like this on your property such that you had to see it daily, you wouldn’t save it. As it is, nearly everyone happily hires billionaires to do it for them. Most of the time they hide behind “but I neeeeeed foooood!!!”. I’ve not given those scumbags a penny in many years, and I’m alive, I’m not rich, and I am absolutely well nourished. I’ve recently done multiple marathons.
The factory farming industry has very significant ecological impacts. In addition to the extreme suffering and misery that it causes to sentient beings. It’s really a lose-lose.
it seems like muddying the waters. why is it so hard to focus on the effectiveness of consumer action in reducing ecological impacts? that is the topic
I see the people consuming the meat and animal products as consumers. I see the impact they have on the planet as ecological impact. I don’t see how this is off topic.
The fact that you habitually pay people to do that animals is what causes them to do this to future animals. You understand this. It tells something that your best defense is this to excuse your actions.
people have free will, and so their choices cannot be said to be caused by anything other than their will. I am not responsible for what people in the meat industry do.
You pay someone to do something for you. Whether this is hiring or paying someone for a service is just semantics. There is an obvious reason why this sort of petty rebuttal is all you are able to use as a response.
why is the bar “absolute need for survival”?
Because if not, then you are putting your own mere 20 minutes of pleasure higher than entire lives of tight, confined, indoor, away from their children and parents, raped, drugged, mutilated while alive of animals. There is no chance that if an animal was living like this on your property such that you had to see it daily, you wouldn’t save it. As it is, nearly everyone happily hires billionaires to do it for them. Most of the time they hide behind “but I neeeeeed foooood!!!”. I’ve not given those scumbags a penny in many years, and I’m alive, I’m not rich, and I am absolutely well nourished. I’ve recently done multiple marathons.
I thought we were discussing ecological impacts. this seems to be an entirely different r discussion.
The factory farming industry has very significant ecological impacts. In addition to the extreme suffering and misery that it causes to sentient beings. It’s really a lose-lose.
it seems like muddying the waters. why is it so hard to focus on the effectiveness of consumer action in reducing ecological impacts? that is the topic
I see the people consuming the meat and animal products as consumers. I see the impact they have on the planet as ecological impact. I don’t see how this is off topic.
the animal is dead long before i decide what to eat. my decision is not a value judgement on their lives.
The fact that you habitually pay people to do that animals is what causes them to do this to future animals. You understand this. It tells something that your best defense is this to excuse your actions.
people have free will, and so their choices cannot be said to be caused by anything other than their will. I am not responsible for what people in the meat industry do.
If someone pays someone else $1,000,000 to kill their ex-girlfriend, is only the murderer morally responsible?
No analogous relationship between the purchaser and the slaughterhouse worker exists.
Paying someone to do immoral actions that harm innocent animals and the environment that we all are forced to share. That is the connection.
no one does that
no one hires billionaires.
You pay someone to do something for you. Whether this is hiring or paying someone for a service is just semantics. There is an obvious reason why this sort of petty rebuttal is all you are able to use as a response.
this is all posturing and rhetoric. there is nothing of substance to rebutt here.