Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

shadar t1_j4e8mcm wrote

Reply to comment by sottedlayabout in Study: Feeding Goats Hemp Enhances the Health, Flavor Profile and Shelf-Stability of Their Meat by GivenAllTheFucksSry

Causing harm for no reason but your own pleasure is the definition of immoral behavior.

1

Nothingtoseeheremmk t1_j4e9ye7 wrote

By that logic we should abandon our cities and go back to living in huts with nothing given how destructive modern society is to many organisms.

Or is pleasure only a problem when it comes to food?

0

shadar t1_j4edeqf wrote

Abandoning cities and returning to living in huts would obviously cause considerable harm combined with how impracticable it would be.

Not eating animals is very easy and also greatly reduces unnecessary suffering.

Also i love how suggesting to not stab innocent animals in the throat is somehow comparable to abandoning modern living. Touch some grass.

−5

Nothingtoseeheremmk t1_j4eese3 wrote

> Abandoning cities and returning to living in huts would obviously cause considerable harm combined with how impracticable it would be.

It would cause far less harm than the amount of damage wrought upon ecosystems every day by modern living. Your concern was over morality, not practicality.

> Not eating animals is very easy and also greatly reduces unnecessary suffering.

So do many societal pleasures, if not most. Are we giving those up too?

> Also i love how suggesting to not stab innocent animals in the throat is somehow comparable to abandoning modern living. Touch some grass.

You claimed it was immoral to cause harm for your own pleasure. Humans cause tremendous harm every day in pursuit of their various pleasures. Don’t make a blanket statement if you can’t defend it.

1

shadar t1_j4efrv0 wrote

Uh no it would cause millions if not billions of people to die from exposure and hunger.

If you're getting pleasure from some activity that requires stabbing someone else in the throat then yes, obviously, you should also stop.

Yes, it is immoral to cause unnecessary intentional and easily avoidable harm. This should be obvious.

−3

Nothingtoseeheremmk t1_j4ehcef wrote

> Uh no it would cause millions if not billions of people to die from exposure and hunger.

And it would save trillions of innocent organisms.

> If you're getting pleasure from some activity that requires stabbing someone else in the throat then yes, obviously, you should also stop.

You understand in order to provide the real estate, electricity, infrastructure, etc needed for modern society kills far far more organisms than we consume for food right?

Every watt of electricity you consume contributes to innocent suffering in someway. It should be easy to give up most entertainment then. No one needs television, video games, etc to survive.

> Yes, it is immoral to cause unnecessary intentional and easily avoidable harm. This should be obvious.

Ok I’m glad you’re onboard with giving up most societal luxuries.

4

beatmaster808 t1_j4eiv3m wrote

This response is key.

We are a virus, therefore eradicating us is OK

How's that for an ethical argument?

When it comes down to it, both ethics and morals are just made up by humans anyway... and broken every day by just about everyone

And if you (anyone) think you're superior, morally or otherwise, because you don't eat meat... then you need to educate yourself further.

4

shadar t1_j4emdt2 wrote

Can you understand the difference between causing incidental harm by existing in modern society, and stabbing someone in the throat for taste pleasure?

1

Nothingtoseeheremmk t1_j4en63m wrote

How is that any different than consuming unnecessary resources that contribute to suffering?

Why is eating an animal worse than playing a video game that causes the death of an animal or another organism? Neither is necessary for survival.

5

shadar t1_j4enr8p wrote

Because you don't have to stab an animal to play a video game? At this point I don't think you're taking this seriously. And if you are ... if you had to stab an animal to play a video game then you shouldn't play that game.

3

IEatSilberCrayons t1_j4f7ytj wrote

You're missing his point.

The generation of that energy causes death. Birds killed by windmills. Habitat destruction to extract lithium, cobalt, oil, gas, coal, manganese, etc. Pollution to process that raw material into usable fuels or equipment to generate and distribute that energy. Massive amounts of destruction and death for the animals in that wake.

Notice, even so called green sources are in this category.

That's not to mention the toxic pollution generated to make the semiconductors in that video game, not the toxins that will leach out if and when it is improperly disposed of.

1

shadar t1_j4fq0l7 wrote

Again. Causing incidental harm by existing in modern society is unavoidable. Just because birds might die to a windmill doesn't mean using electricity is equivalent to choosing to breed, raise and slaughter birds for taste pleasure.

You're arguing that because toxins might leak from some computer component, you may as well stab puppies in the neck for the yum yums.

Around 80 billion animals are murdered every year, participation of which is perfectly avoidable by not buying their dead bodies. That's not even counting the billions more killed from habitat loss. Animal agriculture is by far the largest driver of species extinction. 80% of Amazon deforestation is from cattle farming. That's true "Massive amounts of destruction and death for the animals in that wake".

"While it is true that some birds die every year by flying into turbine towers or blades, the actual numbers are negligible." https://us.orsted.com/renewable-energy-solutions/offshore-wind/seven-facts-about-offshore-wind/birds

Also, I don't see why we can't work to reduce such incidental harms where we are able.

1