• CurlyMoustache@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    112
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’ve kept chickens. They do not understand the family concept. Roosters will happily rape their siblings or their mothers, and hens will enforce a gruelling pecking order even if it means someone dies of hunger/beatings 😢

    • Macaroni_ninja@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      I wonder if they would do the same free in the nature. Locked together in tight spaces and restricted freedom will change the behaviour of every creature.

      • CurlyMoustache@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        38
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        This is the default behaviour for chickens. I can’t think of any chicken like creatures that exists in the wild that resembles. The chickens I kept had plenty of room both inside and outside. Outside was a predator proof fence around a large area with different kinds of vegetation, bushes and wet and dry environments (I also had a couple of mallards). Inside they had running water, things to climb on to roost, and various boxes to lay and sleep in. Every week I cleaned their living quarters and threw down fresh bedding. They were not for food or for egg production. I ate and gave away the eggs they laid.

        Edit: to keep the roosters from doing the dirty with close relatives, I swapped rooster with other people that kept poultry as a hobby

        • DigitalWanderer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          yea i do the same with mine, they roam free in the garden during the day and have a protected outdoor and indoor area so its basically a large playground for them and still the behavior you mentioned is what i see as well. also chickens in the wild? the measures i had to take to keep my chickens safe from foxes, martens, cats, dogs… is just crazy, they have zero defense capabilities so i dont know how they survived ubtill we kept them as livestock

          • Slowy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Chickens originated from the red jungle fowl which is a much leaner and flighted bird (as are certain breeds of chicken) We’ve made modern chickens into something that can’t survive in the wild, much like we turned wolves into pugs!

            • DigitalWanderer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              i love my chickens, they eat all my scraps and weeds from the garden, fertillize my garden, fresh eggs every day which i trade with neighbors for his surplus veggies or a a batch of waffles. its a nice way to live

    • HiddenLayer5@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      So you consider humanity superior in morality to chickens right? Which means that you identify the horrible things they do as horrible, and deem them unacceptable and definitely shouldn’t be repeated by a being of supposed higher intellect and control over one’s own actions beyond simple instincts?

      Seems like an even better argument against eating other animals and especially, especially industrialized factory farming if you ask me, where everything you said is still done, but by humans to the chickens.

      • Surface_Detail@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Big logical gaps in this argument:

        The op never said they were superior morally.

        Even, given the above, the op deemed chickens immoral that does not make all chickens’ actions immoral. Preening, roosting and eating grain are not immoral activities.

        Defining only the horrible acts as horrible is a circular argument as no definition has been provided as horrible.

        Other than those three, you really stuck it to the carnist, chief.

    • dQw4w9WgXcQ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I would assume that large chicken farms would separate the mother from the chicks long before any family bond could be established. There are a lot of viable concerns about how the animals are handled and treated, but the issue of separating a family is just not one of them.

      Peta is Peta’ing yet another subject.

      • HikingVet@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        53
        arrow-down
        23
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Wow, no.

        But what it does do is point out that PETA is full of shit and you shouldn’t listen to the organisation that runs kill shelters becaus they think you shouldn’t have pets.

        The fuckers have actually STOLEN PETS and “euthanized” them inside of a day, when the animal was in good health and in a loving home.

        FUCK PETA, they are a bunch of animal killers.

        • Lileath@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          20
          ·
          1 year ago

          FUCK PETA, they are a bunch of animal killers.

          I assume that you are vegan and dont contribute to the industrialised mass killing of sentient beings in any way? Otherwise you seem quite hypocritical.

          • HikingVet@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            19
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            For a group of people saying thay they are for the ethical treatment of animals, they kill a whole lot of them unnecessarily.

            • BonfireOvDreams@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              PETA takes any animal. So those no kill shelters that you probably love so much have to get rid of animals and send the animal to the next shelter in the chain. Eventually, that could mean PETA shelters. Guess what that means? The most aggressive animals, the most disabled animals, the most sick animals, the most expensive to take care of animals, and otherwise those least desired by those looking for companion animals, are likely to end up at a PETA shelter. They don’t have the funding, the staff, or the safety protocols in place to deal with the never ending supply that breeding creates. If you don’t want PETA to kill animals, which they don’t want to do, encourage the ban on animal breeding so there are fewer of these cases. Also stop pretending that your local no kill shelter is separate from that process. They just offload the bad press to PETA. Do not buy animals. Rescue & adopt.

        • max@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          61
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Lmao this bullshit again. PETA only euthanizes animals that are suffering and beyond saving. They accept animals that are rejected by those “no-kill” shelters that are more concerned with how their statistics look than helping suffering animals, which sometimes means euthanizing. The whole “PETA hates animals” thing is just another way for people to justify their own behaviour against animals. Do you honestly believe PETA is some kind of evil organisation that’s out to kill animals out of pure spite?

          Edit: see here

          • pingveno@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            This person is 100% correct. I’m not a fan of PETA, but think before you downvote.

      • kwking13@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        33
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        That one whooshed right over your head eh? He’s saying that chickens families are not, in fact, the same as human families. They don’t form a family unit with bonds above those of other chickens. It’s mostly because they’re chickens…and not humans and it was a dumb comparison for PETA to try and make.

        Pointing out how chickens relate to other chickens does not mean it’s an endorsement for cruelty…you stretched big time for that one.

        • Beemo Dinosaurierfuß@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          31
          ·
          1 year ago

          I really really want you to explain to me how in your head what I wrote made you think I didn’t get this absolutely obvious thing that OP stated lol.

          • kwking13@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Well, either you’re really bad at expressing yourself through online comments…or you forgot to add a /s to the end of your comment. Certainly seems to me like you’re still a bit confused.

          • HikingVet@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            So, do you think that there are ethical and non abusive animal husbandry methods for raising livestick?

            Do you think there are ethical ways to slaughter livestock?

            You seem to be making this a false binary.

            • Beemo Dinosaurierfuß@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              14
              ·
              1 year ago

              I make this practically correct binary because in practice more than 90% of all livestock is kept in inhumane conditions.

              The theoretical possibility of an ethical way to raise and slaughter livestock is irrelevant to my argument and in essence a straw man because I don’t argue against a hypothetically well raised and humanely slaughtered livestock but against the fact that in reality livestock is mistreated, tortured and killed in horrible conditions in most of all cases.

              If I go to the supermarket and buy meat I am all but guaranteed that the animal has suffered.

              If you raise your own livestock out on open field and treat it right I don’t have a problem with you. But you don’t, do you?

              And even if you just are a carnivore I don’t have any problem with you, you can live your life how you see fit. I don’t really care.

              But if you go to the internet to shit on people that care about animals to feel better about the fact that you don’t, I think you are a dick.
              Not saying that applies to you specifically, but I have seen examples in this thread.

                • Beemo Dinosaurierfuß@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  10
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Possible.
                  The majority of people I know in person would disagree I hope.

                  I agree that I am pretty combative here, but I am also tired of the ever same old and disproven arguments. I am not even vegan myself, but ridiculing people for trying to save animals is just low imho so I kinda don’t care if I am an asshole to people that do it.

  • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    104
    arrow-down
    40
    ·
    1 year ago

    Oh look an anti-vegan circlejerk.

    Do the “how do you know someone’s vegan? They’ll tell you” joke next. I promise it doesn’t come off as insecure.

      • kcfb@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        WHERE WITH ALL THE ANIMALS IF ALL WENT VEGAN NOW?

        Can someone please answer this?!

          • dodgy_bagel@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            An interesting tangent is that this could entail the extinction of several human-designed strains of animal which are not well equipped to live in the wild.

            So mote it be I guess.

            Base genetics are still around for the chicken, pig, and sheep, but the Aurochs’s extinction means we irrevocably altered the cow. I’m sure a few varieties of cow would adapt to the wild though.

            Buffalo may need to keep their vestigial wings too.

            • pingveno@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              More broadly, the answer is that it doesn’t really matter that much. Species go extinct all the time, and with humans around the rate has been astronomically higher. Replacing animal products with plant based or cell based products might even have a net benefit in extinctions, since land that would otherwise go towards feeding and raising livestock could instead be let back to nature.

        • Milk@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Simple: If the animals were freed they would destroy the ecosystems they were freed in (all ecosystems). They could all be killed so they don’t cause any impact. The animals would be suffering from pain, illnesses and slow deaths just as nature intended. Animals would not turn vegans. The world would probably suffer a supply issue. Everyone would be weak, unhealthy and have a lower lifetime cause of their horrible diet. Everyone would be hypocrite as they kill plants and don’t feel remorse just because they’re killing something that can’t walk and doesn’t have eyes and mouth.

          This is the list, add more if you wish.

    • Aux@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      Oh look, you just told everyone what you eat. Joke’s on you.

      • Smirk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Copied from an old reddit post.

        This is why people hate PETA.

        Yes, PETA does some crazy shit, but as with many things there are two sides to the story which is difficult to see when you get bombarded by anti-PETA stuff as is common on e.g. Reddit.

        Anti-PETA efforts by the meat industry:

        Sites like www.petakillsanimals.com are run by the Center for Organizational Research and Education, which is a lobbying platform for the fast food, meat, alcohol and tobacco industries. They also target the humane society, even John Oliver did a piece on them and their founder Richard Berman. That’s just one outlet for their misinformation-campains, they are also cited in lots of blogs and “news articles” as well, so it’s not always very obvious.

        They are the driving power behind all the misinformation and PETA-hate that is spread around. PETA is actually doing a lot for animal rights, that’s why they are such a big target for smear campaigns:

        PETA and their kill-shelters:

        PETA kills animals because unfortunately there are no better places for them. Blame the puppy mills and irresponsible short term owners that give up their pets a few days or weeks after getting them because they had no idea what they got themselves into. Those people create more pets than there are places for them, so instead of having them become strays and further add to the problem, PETA put down those they can’t adopt out. Because PETA accepts all animals, even those that other shelters turn away in order to not sully their adoption numbers, PETA shelters end up with many more “hopeless” animals. See more here.

        The case of the mistaken dog (and how PETA doesn’t steal and murder pets):

        A farmer asked PETA to euthanise a pack of stray dogs that were aggressive and violent towards the farmer’s cows. Upon arrival, PETA found the pack of stray dogs, took them to the shelter and put them down, as a free service. Unfortunately it turned out, that one of the presumed stray dogs was a pet-chihuaha called Maya, that was not sitting on the porch, as often claimed, but running freely with the stray pack, without leash or collar or supervision. PETA fucked up, because they didn’t wait the 5 day grace period to give the owners time to look for and collect their pet. That’s why they had to pay a fine and apologized for it. http://www.whypetaeuthanizes.com/maya.html

        The monkey selfie:

        The monkey took the picture himself btw, the photographer just left the camera lying around. I am not saying the monkey should be copyright holder and it’s an open-shut case, but it does raise the question about the photographer having ownership over something that was voluntarily and independently created by an animal. What if a painter would leave his brushes lying around and an animal would create a painting? The artist actually sees it the same way and settled for a compromise with PETA followed by a joint statement. This was a landmark case in copyright law.

        PETA equating milk to racism:

        White supremacists actually use milk to demonstrate their superiority over “inferior” (their words, obviously) lactose intolerant ethnicities. That’s the reason behind their campaign on the issue.

        Final thoughts (I promise):

        PETA does a good job at raising issues and are one of the most successfull organisations to fight for animal rights. The granting of rights is the only real way to protect animals from unneccessary cruelty. Animal welfare will always be arbitrary, both in what species are worthy of protection, and the extent of protection they are worthy of. You cannot consider yourself an animal lover without recognizing the importance of that.

        Sometimes PETA (intentionally?) overshoot, that happens when you try to move the border of current perceptions (i.e. animals are objects to be used for food, clothes, entertainment). I am not here to defend their tone or (lack of) tact, and there are a number of (sometimes downright stupid) PETA-campaigns I disagree with. I’m not trying to convice you to become their friend, but at least judge them for what they are doing, not for what they are said to do.

        Most of the criticism of PETA you read on Reddit comes straight from the mouths of the Center for Organizational Research and Education (CORE), formerly known as the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF). It’s basically a corporate propaganda organization with donors like Tyson Foods, Wendy’s, and Coca-Cola. They also run campaigns claiming obesity isn’t that major of a problem and that you can eat 10 times as much mercury from fish as experts recommend. The vast majority of the animals PETA euthanizes are suffering and are brought to PETA’s shelter by their owners specifically to be put out of their misery, but the CCF distorts that into “PETA is stealing people’s pets off the streets” and Reddit gobbles it up.

        The media also knows that PETA is an easy target. Years ago I read an article in one of the British tabloids (the Sun or the Mirror) with a headline something like, “PETA blasts child’s bunny wedding!” But if you actually read the article, what happened is a kid dressed up some bunnies in wedding outfits, the “journalist” reached out to PETA and asked them to comment, and PETA said something like, “we don’t support dressing rabbits in costumes because it may be stressful for them.” And that was the end of the story, but that wouldn’t get clicks so they distorted the headline to make it sound like PETA was protesting or attacking the kid on their own accord.

        For the record, I think there are perfectly legitimate criticisms of PETA, like the sexist imagery they use in some of their ad campaigns and their welfarist (as opposed to abolitionist) approach to advocacy. It just gets to me that so many redditors claim to be rational and free-thinking but then read literal corporate propaganda about PETA and swallow it whole without a second thought.

      • Klear@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m getting the feeling all that shit people say about them is a smear campaign.

        • Smirk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Copied from an old reddit post.

          This is why people hate PETA.

          Yes, PETA does some crazy shit, but as with many things there are two sides to the story which is difficult to see when you get bombarded by anti-PETA stuff as is common on e.g. Reddit.

          Anti-PETA efforts by the meat industry:

          Sites like www.petakillsanimals.com are run by the Center for Organizational Research and Education, which is a lobbying platform for the fast food, meat, alcohol and tobacco industries. They also target the humane society, even John Oliver did a piece on them and their founder Richard Berman. That’s just one outlet for their misinformation-campains, they are also cited in lots of blogs and “news articles” as well, so it’s not always very obvious.

          They are the driving power behind all the misinformation and PETA-hate that is spread around. PETA is actually doing a lot for animal rights, that’s why they are such a big target for smear campaigns:

          PETA and their kill-shelters:

          PETA kills animals because unfortunately there are no better places for them. Blame the puppy mills and irresponsible short term owners that give up their pets a few days or weeks after getting them because they had no idea what they got themselves into. Those people create more pets than there are places for them, so instead of having them become strays and further add to the problem, PETA put down those they can’t adopt out. Because PETA accepts all animals, even those that other shelters turn away in order to not sully their adoption numbers, PETA shelters end up with many more “hopeless” animals. See more here.

          The case of the mistaken dog (and how PETA doesn’t steal and murder pets):

          A farmer asked PETA to euthanise a pack of stray dogs that were aggressive and violent towards the farmer’s cows. Upon arrival, PETA found the pack of stray dogs, took them to the shelter and put them down, as a free service. Unfortunately it turned out, that one of the presumed stray dogs was a pet-chihuaha called Maya, that was not sitting on the porch, as often claimed, but running freely with the stray pack, without leash or collar or supervision. PETA fucked up, because they didn’t wait the 5 day grace period to give the owners time to look for and collect their pet. That’s why they had to pay a fine and apologized for it. http://www.whypetaeuthanizes.com/maya.html

          The monkey selfie:

          The monkey took the picture himself btw, the photographer just left the camera lying around. I am not saying the monkey should be copyright holder and it’s an open-shut case, but it does raise the question about the photographer having ownership over something that was voluntarily and independently created by an animal. What if a painter would leave his brushes lying around and an animal would create a painting? The artist actually sees it the same way and settled for a compromise with PETA followed by a joint statement. This was a landmark case in copyright law.

          PETA equating milk to racism:

          White supremacists actually use milk to demonstrate their superiority over “inferior” (their words, obviously) lactose intolerant ethnicities. That’s the reason behind their campaign on the issue.

          Final thoughts (I promise):

          PETA does a good job at raising issues and are one of the most successfull organisations to fight for animal rights. The granting of rights is the only real way to protect animals from unneccessary cruelty. Animal welfare will always be arbitrary, both in what species are worthy of protection, and the extent of protection they are worthy of. You cannot consider yourself an animal lover without recognizing the importance of that.

          Sometimes PETA (intentionally?) overshoot, that happens when you try to move the border of current perceptions (i.e. animals are objects to be used for food, clothes, entertainment). I am not here to defend their tone or (lack of) tact, and there are a number of (sometimes downright stupid) PETA-campaigns I disagree with. I’m not trying to convice you to become their friend, but at least judge them for what they are doing, not for what they are said to do.

          Most of the criticism of PETA you read on Reddit comes straight from the mouths of the Center for Organizational Research and Education (CORE), formerly known as the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF). It’s basically a corporate propaganda organization with donors like Tyson Foods, Wendy’s, and Coca-Cola. They also run campaigns claiming obesity isn’t that major of a problem and that you can eat 10 times as much mercury from fish as experts recommend. The vast majority of the animals PETA euthanizes are suffering and are brought to PETA’s shelter by their owners specifically to be put out of their misery, but the CCF distorts that into “PETA is stealing people’s pets off the streets” and Reddit gobbles it up.

          The media also knows that PETA is an easy target. Years ago I read an article in one of the British tabloids (the Sun or the Mirror) with a headline something like, “PETA blasts child’s bunny wedding!” But if you actually read the article, what happened is a kid dressed up some bunnies in wedding outfits, the “journalist” reached out to PETA and asked them to comment, and PETA said something like, “we don’t support dressing rabbits in costumes because it may be stressful for them.” And that was the end of the story, but that wouldn’t get clicks so they distorted the headline to make it sound like PETA was protesting or attacking the kid on their own accord.

          For the record, I think there are perfectly legitimate criticisms of PETA, like the sexist imagery they use in some of their ad campaigns and their welfarist (as opposed to abolitionist) approach to advocacy. It just gets to me that so many redditors claim to be rational and free-thinking but then read literal corporate propaganda about PETA and swallow it whole without a second thought.

  • MBM@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This is like the rolling coal of meat eating. I hoped we were better than this

    • kameecoding@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      29
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      fossil fuels need to be phased out completely.

      meat eating doesn’t, it can be part of sustainable gardening.

      but yeah the anti-vegan circlejerk is stupid, who gives a shit what you eat

      • teuniac_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The world is burning. Meat has got to go, just like short holidays by plane. And of course a whole bunch of other things. There is very little room to bargain here as we’re way behind on our targets.

        who gives a shit what you eat

        We all should because we share this planet. You should judge a friend who eats steak frequently the same as someone who once in a while chops down a bit of rainforest. The consequences are the same.

        • kameecoding@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          you are an extremist mate, chickens in you backyard helping keep your garden clean won’t end the planet

          • chetradley@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Is that the metric then? If you don’t know you’re going to be killed, it’s ok to kill you?

            • twelve20two @slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              If a life form alien to me was going to suddenly, randomly (from my perspective) kill me to use me as food, I don’t think I would necessarily mind because I had no idea it was going to happen. If I lived my entire life in fear that I could be killed at any moment, I’d be less ok with it.

              I guess what I was going for was that trying to compare a chicken’s understanding of mortality to our own isn’t a compelling argument to me. I think the simple fact that they’re alive and deserve to be treated with dignity is a better argument.

            • bufordt@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t know what the metric is, but chickens wouldn’t exist without us eating them. So from a species standpoint they need us to keep eating them. From a humane standpoint it’s probably cruel to keep the species alive.

              • chetradley@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Agreed. The chicken’s closest natural ancestor, the red jungle fowl, would continue to live in the wild. Unlike modern chickens, they only lay around once a month (as opposed to upwards of once a day), and they aren’t bred to be excessively large to the point that many can’t even walk properly. It would definitely be more humane to let these human made species go extinct.

  • xantoxis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    1 year ago

    Haha don’t be silly - most of the chicken’s family went into the chicken shredder to be turned into feed.

  • BonfireOvDreams@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean I’m just saying, banning meat lobby shilling and boomer tier animal abuse memes is morally good. Would be pretty based mod. Idk. They can get shit on in the thread for sure but I wouldn’t mind not seeing the brain rot 🤷‍♂️

    • teuniac_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yea, screw this kind of stuff.

      Most people on here will know vegetarians or in some cases be one. It’s a respectable choice that takes a lot of willpower and energy. People who make fun of that aren’t my crowd. Mostly because it’s a dick thing to do.

      • gens@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        As one who does not care if the food i eat has meat in it, maybe i can clarify why people react like this. It’s simple: you make me feel like i’m some sort of a heartless, evil person for eating meat, i will make you feel bad as well. Eating chicken is murder ? We humans are omnivores, we eat anything. Meat is less efficient land wise, but is more efficient to digest. Morals have nothing to do with it, as we have long evolved to be that way.

        If you want people to eat more plants; my advice is to make it a better option. I often make myself a 100% plant pasta sauce, but that takes 3x longer to do and doesn’t cost much less then just grilling a piece of meat and cutting a tomato or two. Make cheap tasty vegetarian fast food stalls, cheap mini markets, etc. Calling people murderers will make some of them hate you.

        PS I have a vegetarian friend, for over a decade i didn’t know he was. Respect his decision, has nothing to do with me.

        • Volfkha@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          May I request that you watch Dominion, a 2018 documentary about the farming industry. https://youtu.be/LQRAfJyEsko

          If, after watching it, you still don’t care about consuming animal products or not then fair enough. People seem so sure they already know how animals are farmed so they don’t need to learn about it or watch this kinda thing, but I feel many people would be shocked to actually see with their own eyes that it’s not ‘happy cows living it up in green fields all day’ like the farming industry would like us all to continue believing.

          Many people who work in factory farms end up with all kinds of mental illnesses. Even those who are desensitised to the suffering of animals end up with PTSD and severe depression from contributing to this man-made animal hell.

          • gens@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            My grandparents had pigs, chicken, goats, etc. And my father has farm animals. I’v also seen larger scale farming in my country. It’s not so bad as what you are thinking of, here is not the usa. I know of what you want to show me. Maybe go watch Clarksons Farm for a different view ? Do what you want either way.

            • Volfkha@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              So have you seen Dominion already? I just find it hard to believe anyone can watch Dominion from start to finish and not be done with animal products forever, unless they lack any form of empathy.

              I don’t see how your family having farm animals has much relevance unless they keep them as part of an animal sanctuary where the animals can live out their lives in peace and safety, plenty of room to roam and live as they would like to live their lives? Were any of the animals’ lives cut short so that they could be eaten? Were any of them ever forced to do something they didn’t want to do? Did any of the animals that were slaughtered actually want to die?

              When you say you’ve seen large scale farming in your country, was that in the slaughterhouses? All of the animals were treated with courtesy and respect? Never mistreated? Imagine for a moment that instead of animals being farmed, it was your family members being farmed… would you feel that they were all being treated fairly and justly then? Being herded around and murdered in the prime of their lives so someone can enjoy a sandwich?

              Animals have feelings and emotions just like human animals… the way they feel things will be very similar to how we feel things, both pain and happiness amongst all the other types of feelings and emotions. Imagine again your family being stunned before being murdered, does that make the murder ok because they didn’t suffer at the moment of death? Or perhaps you live in a country where you don’t even need to stun the animal before killing, you can just hang them upside down and skirt their throat while they slowly die in agony.

              I’ve seen a clip of Clarksons farm, it was something to do with him always feeling dread when it was time for his animals to be slaughtered. I’m assuming because even a complete buffoon like Clarkson knows deep down, it’s wrong to kill animals.

                • Volfkha@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I suspect you don’t understand what a one sided conversation is, but ok, good luck and have fun with your life too.

        • Makeshift@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          16
          ·
          1 year ago

          Unpopular take: Good people doing bad things does not make the bad things not bad. Yes, purchasing and consuming animal products is a morally bad thing to do. It is not morally neutral.

          So yes, by consuming animal products, you are a worse person than you would be if you were not.

          Your choice is to purchase the bodies of the dead and “respect” the fact they at they were killed by turning them into sewage. Your choice is to financially reward those who bring them into existence for the sole purpose of killing them for your pleasure and the killers’ profit. This is not a morally neutral thing. This is a morally bad thing.

          Personal choice stops being personal when there’s a victim. The victim is the one whose corpse is being ground up in your mouth.

          • Fushuan [he/him]@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Look, I agree that eating meat is morally bad, I accept that. What most extremist vegetarians need to accept is that there’s people that simple don’t care about animals as much as them, I don’t really care about it just like I don’t really care about some bad things happening in the world, I know that it’s morally wrong, and I’ll push for more options for the people that do care, but I won’t restrict my diet or personally try to fix those things, because I don’t care enough.

            And this sounds quite rude and I look like an ass, I know, but the reality is that there’s a lot of people that think exactly like this. Hell there’s tons of people that thinks like this about actual humans. You won’t convince those people because in the end, it’s their decision and as bad as eating red meat etc is for the body and global warming etc, so are tons of other stuff that people do.

            I really advocate for more vegetarian stuff, I actually enjoy seitan/tofu and dishes with them, but the fact is that I’ll keep consuming meat once in a while, and when you start trying to make every meat consumer your enemy, you also make people from my group, people that actually push for more progress, your enemy, and that’s honestly a bad way to make progress.

            This is going to be a generational progress, there’s way more vegetarian teenagers than 40+ people, and every friend group I frequent on my age range 25-35 has at least someone vegetarian, and businesses naturally will offer more options because if they won’t they’ll lose business.

            Try not making society your enemy, because if you do you will become the enemy of society.

            • MobileTechGuy@lemmy.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              And the angel of the lord came unto me, Snatching me up from my place of slumber, And took me on high and higher still Until we moved to the spaces betwixt the air itself, And he brought me unto a vast farmland of our own Midwest, And as we descended, cries of impending doom rose from the soil; One thousand, nay, a million, voices full of fear, And terror possessed me then, And I begged “Angel of the Lord, what are these tortured screams?”, And the angel said unto me “These are the cries of the carrots, the cries of the carrots! You see, Reverend Maynard, Tomorrow is harvest day, and to them, it is the holocaust!” And I sprang from my slumber, drenched in sweat, Like the tears of one million terrified brothers and roared “Hear me now, I have seen the light! They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers!”

              • TurtlePower@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                This is necessary This is necessary Life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on This is necessary This is necessary Life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life

          • Milk@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            Your opinion isn’t unpopular and you are not oppressed if the media supports you.

            The problem is when the animal suffers. Animals eat other animals all the time and you’re not a killer if you want to eat meat and be healthy.

            If killing animals to eat them is immoral and sadistic even if the animal doesn’t suffer then why you kill fucking plants to eat them? I value animals’ lives and plants’ lives more than human lives but I won’t stop eating just because of that neither will force people or say they’re killers cause they’re eating something that was previously alive.

            • Volfkha@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Animals eat other animals out of necessity to survive. Humans don’t need to consume animal products at all to be healthy.

              If you pay someone to kill and/or torture an animal, mortality wise that is the same as doing it yourself.

              Is this a super hypothetical animal not suffering? Every animal that is any of the following: subjugated, imprisoned, artificially inseminated, branded, murdered, factory farmed, either taken from his/her mother or their offspring taken from them, neglected etc. Suffers. I don’t know how much you know about the farming industry, but the vast majority of farmed animals will suffer horrendously and be killed unkindly, unjustly and will before their natural lifespan. Their lives and murder are a real-life hell. Knocking the animals out before slitting their throats doesn’t always work. Many, many animals end up taking ages to die while being conscious. Many animals are boiled alive because they didn’t get knocked out. But that is just at the point of being murdered… almost all farm animals up to that point will have suffered varying degrees of mental and physical torture.

              I don’t know if you are joking about comparing eating plants being the same as eating animals. A lot of meat eaters do seem to make that argument as if it is genuine, so I’ll respond to it by pasting a part of a book I read recently about it;

              "Firstly and most obviously, it’s important to address the science behind this. A plant lacks a central nervous system, pain receptors and a brain which means that anatomically they don’t have the ability to feel pain.

              If we also consider that the primary reason human and non-human animals feel pain is to alert us that we are in danger or are being hurt and that we need to escape the situation that we are in, a plant cannot move and thus any pain would be inescapable, making life torturous for any plant. Which begs the question, why would plants ever evolve such a horribly debilitating and destructive characteristic, as it goes against the fundamental purpose of evolution?

              If we now view the “plants feel pain argument” from a creationist point of view, why would a benevolent and compassionate God give such a horrible curse to plants? Why would he allow them to suffer so terribly, if it served no purpose for their survival?

              I think part of where the confusion regarding plants and pain comes from is that it is true that they are alive and they conduct various activities at a cellular level, such as tilting to face the sunlight. In fact, plants are capable of doing some truly amazing things, but they do not conduct any activities at a conscious or cognitive level, in essence meaning that plants are not sentient.

              I think a really good way of highlighting this to people is to point out that plants react but they don’t respond. A venus fly trap shuts itself on to a fly, not because it is consciously aware that a fly has landed onto it, but because it reacts to the pressure stimuli caused when the fly lands onto it. This is why the venus flytrap will close around anything that triggers this response, including cigarette butts. A cow on the other hand, won’t eat cigarette butts just because someone puts them in their mouth because a cow consciously responds.

              If we move past the science of whether or not plants feel pain and concentrate on the ethics of the excuse, I am doubtful that anyone truly believes that dropping a cauliflower into boiling water and boiling chickens alive (something that often happens in the chicken slaughtering process) is the same thing. Nobody thinks that slicing the neck of a cow is similar to cutting the stems off a broccoli, or castrating a pig is similar to peeling a potato. But say the person you are talking to is determined that plants feel pain like animals do - it takes up to 16 kilograms of plants to create 1 kilogram of animal flesh, meaning vastly more plants are killed in the production of animal products than they are vegan products. On top of this it’s important to note that up to 91% of Amazon rainforest destruction is due to animal agriculture, meaning that millions of trees have been and continues to be destroyed because of our consumption of animal products.

              So if the person you are speaking to truly believes that plants feel pain and are sentient, then remind them that by consuming non-vegan products they are not only causing the suffering of animals but also causing the alleged suffering of huge amounts of plants as well. To be honest, if this excuse comes up I often avoid talking about the science of whether or not plants have the ability to feel pain as sometimes people will say, “but science has only gone so far” and they get stuck with that point. Instead, I often just go straight into talking about the amount of crops killed for animal products, so perhaps try asking: “For the sake of discussion, let’s say plants do feel pain, are you aware that it can take up to 16 kilograms of plants to create 1 kilogram of animal flesh, so vastly more plants are murdered for animal products than they are vegan products?” You could also ask, “If you were driving down the road and a dog jumped out in front of your car, would you swerve onto a bed of flowers to avoid hitting the dog?” - this reinforces in people’s minds that there is morally a difference between non-human animals and plants, as in that situation we would always choose to avoid the dog and instead hit the plants"

              • Milk@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Plants can feel pain and it’s not a creationist standpoint, they just can’t make a visible reaction but they do transmit very small electric charges in reaction to pain. Plants also can react to other things like sounds and it is sometimes used to make them grow better. Also, they can’t scream but they’re still alive so you’re still murdering them.

                Animals aren’t tortured cause of the simple fact stress makes their meat bad (and it would be a crime and stupid to torture an animal just cause you can) and sometimes nearly not edible and, if you couldn’t notice, people don’t eat bad meat.

                “Lie for youself if you want but not to me.” You can pretend your unhealthy is helping someone but you can’t say to people it is healthy. Vegans face many health issues and are, almost always, very underweight; humans are omnivores and not herbivores. Destroy your body if want but don’t lie to other people and encourage them to do the same.

                • Volfkha@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I figured you have been trolling from the start but ok… A visible reaction in plants = pain? Just because there is a reaction in something, doesn’t mean it has to be pain. How do you know the reaction isn’t pleasure or you know… just a reaction without a feeling involved?

                  Also, I didn’t say that it was just a creationist idea, part of the book passage I pasted covered that incase people try to argue it from that standpoint, but the main focus is the science behind the idea I’m pretty sure the concept of murder covers sentient beings.

                  But let’s say for sake of argument they do feel pain, many, many more plants are grown and ‘murdered’, as you put it, to be fed to farm animals than straight to humans. So for the human race to cut down on both animal and plant murder, it would be best to cut out animal farming altogether which would save both trillions of animals and many more trillions of plants from being tortured and murdered. Humans obviously need to eat to survive, so why not go with the way that causes the least suffering both animal and plant wise, if it can’t be cut out completely?

                  To quote my favourite philosopher as to why he was vegetarian “cows scream louder than carrots”.

                  You may continue to voice your mis/disinformation about veganism being unhealthy, but these days there’s so much proof that being vegan can be healthy, not only healthy but has many health benefits over a meat eating diet including missing out on all kinds of diseases which come from a meaty diet. Biologically speaking it seems humans have most in common with frugivores. I’m thinking most people think we are omnivores simply because we are able to eat both plants and animals. Real omnivores are many times biologically better evolved to have meat in their diet.

                  Several of the biggest health organisations in the world have confirmed that a vegan diet is healthy. I don’t know where you get your information from, but it is incredibly faulty.

      • BonfireOvDreams@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes let all the Nazis racists eugenicists etcetera run wild because we don’t want to censor based on morality 🥺🥺

          • BonfireOvDreams@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            A) I don’t have to equivocate. Killing humans isn’t the same as killing a chicken. We agree. The point is obvious. Moderation exists for a reason. Discrimination and normalizing violence are things worth moderating. You’re either being intellectually dishonest in response or need to give it a little more thought.

            B) Species difference aside, their experience at scale is by definition a holocaust. 136 million will die today alone. They can’t grasp the scale as individuals, but they experience it personally. Believe it or not, some people value non-human life. Whether or not you do is not relevant given lack of moral justification.

      • Milk@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        You can’t expect people in here to have some kind of brain. It’s like trying to understand how they want a free (as in freedom) Internet without big tech at the same time they want censorship of their opponents and are lefties.

  • lunaticneko@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    KFC’s newest disclaimer: Family Bucket does not mean the entire family of chickens are in the same bucket.

  • Stuka@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Why is memes a back and forth of vegan vs anti vegan. Make your own damn communities. So damn tiresome to see the same comment thread every day in a different post.

    • MobileTechGuy@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Right?! This was just a low-effort repost to get some laughs. It actually ended up making me laugh hard today with how ridiculous it’s gotten.

  • HiddenLayer5@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Look, PETA is not exactly the model organization they think they are. Actually they have plenty of issues and hypocrisy with their own messages and IMO are by no means a credible or reliable source. BUT, credit where credit’s due, their shitpost that everyone hated got more discussion from both sides on the realities of the meat industry than any whistleblower or researcher publishing a paper on the conditions of industrialized meat farming, its environmental and climate implications. More engagement from this than pretty much any measured response, analysis, or criticism of the meat industry or the ethics of eating meat that has ever come out. This thread is an example of that.

    That might say more about the nature of internet culture and what people will actually respond to and engage with than anything else. Obviously in an ideal world everyone will engage way more with those whistleblower and scientific researcher findings and organizations like PETA wouldn’t even exist, and it would be the measured responses that will be the things triggering discussion on subjects like plant-based meat and veganism, probably a much more level headed discussion since that tend to be more dependent on the context of the discussion than the subject itself, and we really should be working toward that. But, I think that’s still a silver lining because we absolutely need to be having these discussions.

  • GreenCrush@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah fuck this comm. It’s all I see when I open Lemmy, and the jokes really are just boomer humor.

      • Texas_Hangover@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        No no no! It’s better to shriek about my hurt little feelings and demand federation or whatever.

        • stevedidWHAT@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Ur so cool and macho for downplaying others opinions on animal slaughter.

          I bet your dad would be super proud of you! Yes he would! Who’s a good little daddy’s boy! You are!

          • Texas_Hangover@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            My dad was killed before I was born, and I was raised by sisters and aunts. So you can take your hollering about the patriarchy somewhere tf else lol. Got any other talking points you’d like to try out?

            • stevedidWHAT@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              If that’s true and not an attempt to emotionally stun the conversation as is common in dipshit trolls, I’m sorry for your loss.

              Back to your dumbass toxic masculinity comment now - you literally argued that they were being “emotional” despite nothing in their argument being emotional

              But yeah we can pretend you somehow had a point lmao

              That Texas heat has you delusional. hopefully climate change from the massive meat farm industry won’t fuck up that privatized (lmao epic win right) electrical grid yall rely on.

              Lord knows I’ll be lobbying that you all get not one penny of aid.

              • Texas_Hangover@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                Dude starts yapping on about “my daddy” like it’s a kingpin argument. Now I’m “emotional” you fuckers are comical.

                • stevedidWHAT@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I’m comical??? Lmao

                  Your brilliant, typical southern response to someone expressing how they feel about a situation was to call them emotional.

                  How is that not typical toxic masculinity/patriarchy. You don’t need a father or male role model in your life to be affected by, oh I don’t know, the rest of the fucking men in the country?

                  You fuckers need to get your head out of the sand, learn how to have civil debate again (like the south used to be, prior to getting FUCKED on the civil war) and reinvest in your education systems because you sound dumb as fuck right now

  • Skoobie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Personally, I just think the moral middle ground would be to be the person that slaughters and butchers the animals you eat. It would allow the most respect for all parties imo.

    • chetradley@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      The moral middle ground is to not kill animals (or pay someone to) if you don’t need to.

      • Skoobie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t know. That feels a bit off-center to me rather than middle considering one end of the spectrum is “kill nothing ever” and the other end is “How many endangered animals can I make extinct just for funsies.” If everyone killed what they ate themselves, manually, I bet we’d have a bunch more vegetarians hanging around.

        • jaackf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Surely one side would be “kill nothing” and the other would be “kill animals”?

        • chetradley@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think it’s morally neutral to ask why we kill animals. Do you kill the animals you eat?

          • Skoobie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I agree that question is morally neutral. And not yet, I don’t, but that is the long term goal. I’ve got the land I would need and am working on fencing. In the interim, I have switched to meat raised and butchered by hand.

              • Skoobie@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                Hmmm, I hadn’t considered it in those particular terms, previously. I would definitely say my actions are less moral than they would be if I was doing the raising and butchering myself. Evil feels harsh but if we are using clear cut terms like good, neutral and evil, then I have to put my current actions in the evil column. And since my entire argument is based on a moral middle ground, I would say yes. I am attempting to move into morally neutral territory.