• magnetosphere@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    154
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    People wouldn’t care nearly as much if he said this while standing over a pond full of fish, but since they’re cute, fuzzy lambs, it’s Crossing The Line.

    • Waluigis_Talking_Buttplug@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      To be fair, fish brains are much further removed than other mammals.

      Mammals have memories and can love. They have opinions and personalities.

      The distinction that I would better is how up in arms some people get at the idea of eating dogs or cats but other mammals are perfectly fine.

    • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean, yeah… Lambs are baby animals. Of course they are fluffy and cute.

      Id feel pretty weird eating cute, baby animals, so I don’t. I do get why people don’t like this situation. It feels like people are being obtuse in this thread pretending to be flummoxed by all this.

      • naught@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yeah I mean it makes me sad (as a veg) but is this out of character or really “wrong” to a meat eater? Like, that animal is exactly what you find to be very tasty and have no problem eating. What’s wrong with this given that ethical framework? If anything, he’s just being earnest lol

        e: phrasing

          • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Anyone who thinks that’s all they are is either horribly desensitized or hasn’t spent any real time around farm animals.

            I know lots of farmers who think exactly that. Stop projecting your self-righteous sense of morality on others.

            Unless you’re going to invoke some actual philosophy, your opinion is just as moot as anyone else’s.

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

        Gordon Ramsay absolutely is not sheltered. He has killed and harvested his own animals many times.

        As for hunters not doing this, I think you don’t know many hunters. I’m a hunter, have many hunter friends, and talk hunting with people any chance I get. I’ve never met a hunter who wouldn’t be ok with this(or even do it themselves). Granted this is anecdotal evidence from both of us, but still.

        Also, some people genuinely don’t care about the animals we raise specifically for food, that’s all they are to them (I fall into this group). I see their lives as ours, they exist solely to feed us. That doesn’t mean I think they should have shitty living conditions until their time comes, they should be able to enjoy what little life they have.

          • XbSuper@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            I never said it was made up, just that neither of our evidence is based on much.

            As for being cringey? Call it what you want, but those specific animals literally only exist because they’re delicious, and we want to eat them. It doesn’t matter if you don’t like it, it’s fact.

            Animals are here for us to enjoy. The exact meaning of that is up to each individual on this earth.

          • papertowels@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            No, your anecdotal experiences are different, so they shouldn’t be used as a basis to influence or judge others.

              • papertowels@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Was this anecdote included to justify the judgement?

                Alternatively, every hunter and farmer I know who hasn’t become fully disassociated (the majority of them) respects the animals they eat too much to do something like this.

                I’m not saying you’re wrong for judging others btw- just that in light of two equally anecdotal and contrasting experiences, the anecdotal evidence should not be included.

      • papertowels@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        and also shows a disregard for where your food comes from

        I don’t think you can acknowledge where your food is coming from anymore than this.

      • jscummy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Strikes me as completely the opposite. He’s going to the source overseeing the whole process. And obviously it’s going to be prepared with the utmost care and turned into a world class dish. Compared to Joe Schmo torching a factory farmed steak, it seems a lot more respectful

  • Norgur@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    84
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    So… if you’re not acknowledging where the meat comes from, that’s bad
    But if you are acknowledging it, it’s bad as well?

    Many people who eat meat do that not while lying to themselves about where it comes from as many vegetarians/vegans assume. They just legitimately do not feel bad for the animals they eat. Just as so many of us don’t feel bad about the clothes they wear or the smartphone batteries they use.

    The world is full of abuse, suffering and other such bullshit. You can’t feel bad about all of it, or you’d go insane because you can’t escape it. Besides, the brain just numbs itself at a certain pöint. So you need to allocate your compassion to a few of the sufferings you know of. Many go with animals for that. Many don’t.

    So the question isn’t why the person eating meat is heartless, the question is what kind of pity the person not eating meat left out for it.

    That’s how my mind processes the whole thing.

    • agent_flounder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      See this is one of the reasons I started hunting. I figured if I couldn’t morally deal with personally killing and preparing the creature, no more meat. It’s easy to eat meat when it’s a lump in plastic wrap on a store shelf versus when it’s like standing in front of you. (I leave the actual butchering to professionals though). Wasting food hits different when you saw it alive and you’re the one who unalived it.

  • kaffiene@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    78
    arrow-down
    25
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m a meat-eater. The vegans are right - its more moral to not eat meat. Meat eaters getting outraged when people point out that meat is actually dead animals are hypocrites. Either accept that you’re in the wrong but doing it anyway (as I am) or change. Don’t complain when people point out your hypocrisy

    • oij2@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s not the meat eating that’s immoral, it’s the industrialization of meat production that is - robbing an animal of all its freedom and all its chances to actually be alive. It kills evolution. It is anti-life.

      What is happening on these industrialized meat farms is utterly disgusting and will become a crime once synthetic meat production is economically viable. It’s existentially wrong beyond any morals.

      • XIIIesq@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Absolutely can’t wait for lab grown meat to reach industrial scale.

        Hunted meat is really ethical in the mean time, in my country that usually means pheasant (at the right time of year) or venison (which is unfortunately not cheap at all, I’d really like to see deer hunting for meat encouraged by the government).

        I do eat farmed meat, but I definitely eat less of it than I used to.

        • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Hunting is also beneficial to the health of game animal herds, and is a fundamental part of wildlife conservation.

          So it can be ethical, healthy, and tasty to eat meat from killed animals.

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

            Not true they hunt the wrong ones. In nature the sick and weak are eaten by predators. We shoot the healthiest ones. Bad idea.

    • kookaloo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      Could you explain which part of eating meat is wrong? We have evolved to what we are today, thanks largely to our ancestors’ diets.

      • Kedly@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        One pretty consistent moral among societies is that needlessly causing harm is considered wrong. Outside of lab grown, its impossible to acquire meat without grievously harming an animal. Further, the vast majority of our meat is NOT gained by hunting but instead by factory, and the conditions of meat factories are appalling and horrific. So yes, if we CAN get the nutrients we need without the consumption of meat, that is the most moral way to get our nutrition met. All that being said, even today, being able to meet all nutritional needs without any form of animal cruelty is an incredibly privileged position to be in, and we arent quite at the stage where its fair to judge others for not doing so

        (edit: and I say this as a meat eater, meat is fuckin delicious and I dont want to give it up. I’m personally banking on lab grown meat becoming an economical option, at which point we have removed the ethical muddiness of it)

        (Edit 2: Lmao, I ruffled the feathers of a lot of meat eaters who’ve likely never actually had to kill any if the animals they’ve eaten. I have, I still eat meat. Reality is messy, fucking own it)

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

          Well hunting is a pain in the ass as it is. In an industrialized society we traded markets with shared goods to more specific specialties. Sure I can hunt for food because of licenses and availability but the trade off is most of the people have really good health care. At least objectively they have access to healthcare that can cure things that back in the 1500s would kill you within days.

          My point is that at some point someone said “Hey I can take care of the meat portion if you take care of (insert many specialists careers).” There was no morality involved. Choosing to be vegan is fine. I think that it’s easier to get certain things from animal sources. So does nature.

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          One pretty consistent moral among societies is that needlessly causing harm is considered wrong.

          besides your total lack of specificity about ethical systems or societies in which they exist, your use of “needlessly” is doing a lot of work there. on the one hand it sets up a no-true-scotsman where you can always claim no need is great enough, but it also gives anyone challenging this claim a loophole the size of a walmart to walk through: just claim it’s necessary.

          i don’t think you really understand the claim you made. worse, if you do, that means you’re intentionally using vague language and intellectually dishonest tactics to persuade. this is called sophistry.

          • Kedly@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Im kinda done arguing with dumbasses in good faith about whether or not killing an animal is less ethical than not killing one. I’m a meat eater, I find meat delicious, and I ALSO recognise that most of the world isnt in a privileged enough position to NOT eat meat in order to fulfill their dietary needs. None of this takes away from the fact that killing is less ethical than not killiing

            • Im kinda done arguing with dumbasses in good faith about whether or not killing an animal is less ethical than not killing one.

              Abso-fucking-lutely based. Sometimes it’s better to just call a dumbass, ‘a dumbass’ than engage with their bullshit sealioning.

            • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Im kinda done arguing with dumbasses in good faith about whether or not killing an animal is less ethical than not killing one.

              calling your interlocutors names is a great way to indicate you’re done arguing in good faith, but you just came out and said it. too bad you don’t seem capable of defending the claim you’re making.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          One pretty consistent moral among societies is that needlessly causing harm is considered wrong.

          The problem with this as your moral compass is that “needless” can mean whatever you want it to mean. It’s not actually a guideline to any specific behavior

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

            Thats a semantics arguement to a generalized statement which is special kind of stupid. I gave a detailed response to further explain why this applies to meat eating and even ended with saying we havent reached a point in society where its fair to judge others for not abandoning eating meat. Just because society has always done things a certain way, doesnt make it right or moral, slavery was the NORM until around the last couple 100 years, and now its near universally considered atrocious. Meat eating from once living animals will likely be the next once norm, now evil, societal concept. But we arent there yet

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

              I gave a detailed response to further explain why this applies to meat eating

              Meat eating from once living animals will likely be the next once norm, now evil

              The subjectivity of these takes is my entire point.

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

                Damn near everything is subjective dumbass, its why theres so many societal problems that are still around even though they’ve plagued us for centuries

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

                  The entire purpose of a moral compass is to not be subjective. I didn’t make the claim that everyone should, or does, live by one set guideline. You did

          • papertowels@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Isn’t all morality subjective, rendering your comment moot?

            Generally accepted morals certainly can be guidelines for behaviors.

          • Kedly@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Plants dont experience life the same way we do dumbass. Do you think its ok to torture a pet cat as fun? Probably not, if so, you already recognize that harming an animal is less ethical than harming one. Really not that hard a concept to grasp. Eat meat, meats fucking delicious, but dont fucking delude yourself into thinking NOT killing an animal isnt less ethical than killing one.

            • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Do you think its ok to torture a pet cat as fun? Probably not, if so, you already recognize that harming an animal is less ethical than harming one

              wrong. torture can be wrong while incidental harm may be totally amoral. one has nothing to do with the other.

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

                Counterpoint, something can be less moral than another thing WITHOUT being immoral. There are many MANY reasons to continue eating meat in this day and age, being just as moral as not, is NOT one of them

                • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  There are many MANY reasons to continue eating meat in this day and age, being just as moral as not, is NOT one of them

                  most ethical systems, in fact, do support that position: meat eating in and of itself is amoral to nearly every ethical system i can think of (and i know a lot)

                • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  i have a tendency to write very short comments, but i feel i’ve been misunderstood. let me try again:

                  you set up an claim that, if i’m reading it correctly, says “people believe torturing cats is wrong because they think harming an animal is less ethical than not harming an animal”

                  but that doesn’t necessarily follow. people may believe torturing cats is wrong, and that belief may have nothing to do with the other (that harming an animal is less ethical than not harming an animal). in fact, they can hold that belief without out believing the other at all.

        • orrk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          problem is that only some well of westerners can reliably eat vegan and cover their nutrient intake, if you are worried about animal cruelty look into sustainable and ethical meet production

          Edit: well off western vegans be mad

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        And some civilisations practised human sacrifice. “We did it in the past” isn’t really an arguement.

        • kookaloo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          Congratulations, you’ve completely missed the point. Apples and oranges.

          Our bodies grew and developed thanks to the nutrients meat provided. What does that have to do with human sacrifices?

      • Sludgeyy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Our ancestors hunted wild animals

        Industrialized meat production is horrible and wrong

        That’s the part that is wrong

        Let a pig have a happy life, then kill it. There is no need to force feed it in a coffin size pen for its whole life.

        • kookaloo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          I didn’t ask what is wrong with the current industrial approach to farming animals, I asked what is wrong with eating meat.

          • Sludgeyy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Could you explain which part of eating meat is wrong?

            You said which part.

            That’s the part that is wrong

            When you go to the store and purchase meat from an animal that was kept in inhumane conditions, you are supporting the system.

      • tweeks@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s only wrong if you believe hurting other living things is wrong, it depends on your upbringing / mental framework and how you relate those between different species.

        But I believe most people agree that the current way we mass produce meat and how we treat these animals is like a dystopian endgame. If humans were treated like that by a higher intelligence that would be extremely disturbing and cruel. We just accept it as we place the priority on a steak on our plate.

        It is how it is, everyone is ignorant or a hypocrite in some parts of life. Good or bad are only subjective perspectives. But if you look at the harm we cause to other beings with eating meat and in what mechanistic way, that might be one of the things in 100 years we look back at and just can’t fathom.

      • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s an incredible weak argument. Our ancestors did all kinds of stuff which lead to societies prosperity. Doesn’t make all of it morally right.

    • SirStumps@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Circle of life. If I were in the wild and defenseless and animal wouldn’t hesitate to kill me, as it should be. It’s not wrong, it’s nature. Morality isn’t the same from person to person.

      • debil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Quite an assumption. There’s nothing natural in factory farming. Circle of death, that is.

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

          You are assuming now. I never said anything about factory farming, just that eating meat was natural. I agree the methods are detestable.

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

            You appealed to nature and threw a desert island scenario when the OP is clearly about animals raised in captivity and to be slaughtered way before their natural end of life. Also, eating meat is natural for carnivores. Us omnivores can do well (even better) without animal products.

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

              There was no desert island scenario. There was a comparison to eating and being eaten, which is natural in both senses. As omnivores we developed to eat both meats and plants just like all other omnivores on the planet. To deny one part of our natural diet is unhealthy. You seem to have some kind of agenda which I will not be a part of.

              You are entitled to your opinions and I will respect that but I will no longer communicate with you on the subject. Have a good week.

      • WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I agree with the people here calling out the cruelty of the industrialized meat industry, but eating meat in and of itself is not inherently wrong. The universe seems to consume itself by design—there is a reason Ouroboros (the serpent eating its own tail) is an ancient symbol for eternity. We are in an interlocked system that recycles matter and energy to sustain life.

        Moderation in all things. Don’t take more than you need, but don’t deny yourself either. If I had my druthers, I would much rather be eaten by a cool animal after I die than sit in a box embalmed. Live a good life, and at least the animals you eat will be part of that positive contribution too.

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

          I can completely agree the means to get to the end is indeed very cruel. We are all animals and I would not like to be treated so inhumanely just to die. However, eating meat is as natural as breathing.

          I agree that I would rather my body go back into the circle than decay in the ground.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Under literally any ethical system you choose.

        Forget harm to the animal for a moment.

        Breeding animals to slaughter is more water, land and time intensive than growing crops, and produces substantially fewer calories for even more land area. Breeding animals to slaughter also generates far more CO2 then crops, either from the animal directly or from transport and butchering processes.

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Under literally any ethical system you choose.

          deontological ethicists aren’t concerned with the consequences, only the action itself.

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Under literally any ethical system you choose.

          i don’t know of any divine command theory that says anything like that

        • LufyCZ@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          If it’s pure calories you’re after, might I suggest Uranium? It’s pretty cheap considering what you can theoretically get out of it.

          ^/s

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          letting a cow graze a field and killing it next year takes way less time than tilling and planting and fertilizing and watering and harvesting.

          • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Not relevant. The field that is used to grow food stock for animals could have been used to grow food stock for humans. Potatoes have a high calorie count and are not particularly difficult to grow.

            You’ll get far more calories out of the field of potatoes than a field of cows, unless you’re packing them in at the same density as the potato plants which I’m assuming you’re not.

            • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              You’ll get far more calories out of the field of potatoes than a field of cows,

              if the land is unsuitable for crop production, you can often still raise cattle on it.

              • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                You still need to grow food to feed the cattle, if only for winter stock, so you have to find a fertile field to grow food stock, so that field could be used for growing crops and the field that’s unsuitable for anything else could just be, well not used. There’s absolutely no scenario where cattle are going to be more sustainable than crops.

                • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  you can feed cattle silage and crop seconds from food grown for people. you don’t need to plant crops just to feed cattle.

                • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  There’s absolutely no scenario where cattle are going to be more sustainable than crops.

                  wrong.

                • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  the field that’s unsuitable for anything else could just be, well not used

                  why, though? making food is a good use of land.

            • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              The field that is used to grow food stock for animals could have been used to grow food stock for humans.

              often, it is. as i said, most of the crops fed to animals are parts of plants people can’t or won’t eat.

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

          Much more land can be used for growing animals than for growing crops. And without animals there would be no dung so the only way to let crops grow would be chemical fertilizer (which is made of oil).

          • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’re talking about a different issue which is food shortages.

            There is absolutely no shortage of arable land on earth, the problem is it isn’t evenly distributed but that’s an easy enough problem to solve if we actually wanted to solve it. The solution isn’t cattle.

            It’s obviously not the solution because if it was the solution there wouldn’t be world hunger, you can’t feed millions of people on cow.

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Either accept that you’re in the wrong but doing it anyway (as I am) or change

      Lmao “you don’t get to actually disagree and the only options are you being wrong.”

      Nah. Animals are lesser than people, and it’s fine to eat them

        • Speiser0@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          No. I also wouldn’t be fine if you ate other stuff that I have for purposes other than eating, like a chocolate sculpture.

          Edit: Misread. My answer is yes.

          • UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Who said I would eat YOUR stuff? What if I purchased a puppy from a breeder (hence, my property), raised it till it was three, slaughtered it one day, marinated its meat, stuffed its ass with some of those noice spices, chucked it in the oven and served it to my kids for Thanksgiving? Would that be animal abuse?

            Let’s go a step further. Let’s start a breeding farm for kittens.

            “Meow”

            “Shut the fuck up u furball! Now get into my fryer you! Gotta keep our Kentucky Fried Kittens profitable, don’t we?”

            Would that be animal abuse? Would I be allowed to start my KFC alternative- KFK?

            “KFK- Tasty, Cute, Meow meow”

            • Speiser0@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Oh, sorry, I somehow misread your comment as “if I killed and ate your puppies and kittens”. I gotta read more careful next time.

              Now get into my fryer you!

              (That kinda sounds like you’d want to fry the animal without killing it before, which would obviously be animal abuse.)

              If you don’t abuse the animal, it’s ok that you eat kittens and puppies.

              That being said, I myself would still not want eat cat meat, because cats resemble humans too much, and because we interact with them a bit like they were human. For similar reasons I also wouldn’t want to eat ape meat, for example.

              What sort of meat someone wants to eat can’t only be as rigid as either anything but human or anything but animal. One could for example decide not to eat any mammal meat, but still eat fish and bird. Or one could not want to eat the meat of any life-form, nor exploit any life-form for their needs (how gross of you to hold trees in masses and rip off their unborn offspring!), though living like that would be super difficult as of now. It just so happens to be that many people decide that lamb meat is ok for them to eat.

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

          Sure? I don’t think they’d taste very good, but some cultures eat dogs. There’s definitely a hungry enough that I’d eat dog, and it’s way before shit like shoe leather

      • Smk@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yea, animal are basically slaves. They feed us and keep the ecosystem going. They are property, not individual.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Slavery was bad because it was people treating people like animals, so no they’re not like slaves, slaves were like them.

          Important distinction

  • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Do you ever feel like modern society just wants to be outraged all of the time?

    In the unlikely event humanity survives our many man made crises of this era, might this come to have been known as the Karen Age?

    • bus_factor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s because the threshold for writing “X causes outrage” in a headline is “one random nobody tweeted angrily about it”. For any given topic you can always find at least a single person who is angry about it. So this might just as well be known as the Shitty Clickbait Journalism Age.

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

        Then again, people do love to go with the outrage train, even if it is something they don’t care that much about.

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      Outrage sells clicks and views better than anything except maybe disaster with a side of pretty young white girl.

      They want to sell you outrage. So that’s what you see all the time.

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

        Indeed. It’s less modern society and more three Twitter handles that are probably the same person retweeting themselves because you can find someone saying anything on Twitter to justify any made up faux outrage headline.

        Meanwhile the ‘smart’ people eat it up. How many comments in this thread lol?

    • agent_flounder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Do you ever feel like modern society just wants to be outraged all of the time?

      How DARE you! (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

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

      I think that’s part of it. I think it is also caused by the fact that everyone is outraged by different things. If you get a big enough audience someone is bound to be outraged about something even if everyone is being mostky reasonable.

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

      Just someone outraged.

      Most people probably moved on without any reactions.

      Some stayed leaving comments for whatever reason.

      The story we hear is written by the latter group, even if it is a tiny minority.

  • FrostKing@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    People’s perspectives on things are weird. I’m totally fine with vegans, vegetarians, meat eaters, whoever. But when someone who eats meat is excited because they think meat tastes good… why did you think they eat it??? Obviously they think it’s yummy, and obviously, to a certain degree, they see animals as a source of that. If you want to fight against that fine, but don’t act surprised that it exists.

    • ToxicWaste@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Lots of people don’t really understand where meat comes from. They understand the concept that an animal has to die, but they prefer their meat comming out of a plastic package.

      Example: we used to raise our own animals, I knew every single one by name and saw them grow up. When it was time to slaughter them we brought them to the butcher, got a carcass and the fur back. Guests could help feed the animals, feel the fluffiest pillow out of treated fur and I could tell them the name of the animal we served. However, most of them (obviously all meat eaters) could not comprehend at all, how we could slaughter and process those absolutely cute things.

      I prefer to know where my meat comes from. Many people prefer not to, so they can loose appetite or get upset if they see the animal before it is brought to the butcher.

      • Triple_B@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Everyone should, at least once, kill something for their meal. It makes you appreciate it, even if I still buy meat from Costco, etc.

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          I agree, or if they can’t handle it they shouldn’t be eating it. Distancing yourself from the killing is just mental. If you’re purchasing meat, you’re causing something to be butchered. If you can’t handle witnessing it/participating in it, you should reconsider eating it. The customer is still a participant who is willfully ignorant.

    • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Its considered disrespectful.

      The moral take of meat eating is that we respect the animals we kill to survive, and that we dont waste or belittle the animal just because its food.

      This is the reason local farms are “more ethical” than commercial farming, because theyre more likely to treat the animal with respect.

      Ramsey here is getting flack cause its kinda disrespectful to the living thing he is going to eat.

            • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              You arent trying to not hurt the lambs feelings.

              You respect the animal because that respect is what keeps you from forgeting that the lamb is still a living, thinking, feeling animal even when its going to become food.

              When you respect your livestock, you feed them well, keep them groomed, treat them when sick, and keep them reasonably happy. You cant abuse your animals when you respect them.

              Obviously this doesnt mean ramsay is an animal abuser. Im sure he just thinks its a funny joke. In the right contexts, it usually is.

      • MBM@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I don’t think he can say anything that is comparable in disrespect to what happens in the average slaughterhouse (bad compared to ethically sourced meat? Sure, you could argue that)

        • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ok, and? You dont respect someone by finding the person who respects them the least and setting your bar 1 notch above that.

      • Ataraxia@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Respect is a human concept. It isn’t in nature and it’s just to make people like you feel better about the fact that life means you gotta kill something to keep living. At least food is delicious.

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

      I don’t think ‘surprised’ is the word that really fits what is going on here. I’m a meat eater and even i think this is Unnecessary… inappropriate… in the same way that I hate idiot drivers even though I drive a car too.

      but then your argument doesn’t really have any relevancy if it’s anything but pretending people are without the worldly experience you deem to have and believe we’re just over here clutching pearls over it.

    • stevedidWHAT@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      People are pretty obviously protesting his behavior prior to dining/slaughter.

      There’s such a thing as responsible, informed omnivores who don’t like this objectifying bone head (wonder what home life is like with Gordon) or his behavior towards something that will give it’s life to sustain us.

    • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because you’re gonna eat the whole lobster yourself. You’d have to get a quorum of the other customers who are going to eat it.

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

      You can if you go buy one from a farmer. In many rural places, you can then take it (or have it sent) to a butcher, and then pick up your coolers of fresh meat cuts to fill your deep freezer at home. I know people who do this, say once or twice a year. Better quality meat, often the animal had a better life on a local small farm, and per pound, far better price over the course of the year.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You absolutely can it’s just logistically awkward. Just think about it, how often do you eat lobster versus how often you eat steak?

      But I’m fairly sure that if you turned up at a farm you can actually do this, at least once or twice. Although long term I’m not sure it would be in the farmers interest because it’s probably more hassle than it’s worth.

  • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I looked and this isn’t satire. Somehow.

    Any meat eater who is offended by his statements needs to find a big ol mirror and stare in it until they ratify that feeling with their diet.

    • bus_factor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      That headline is probably based on a single tweet by some nobody, and they’re probably vegan.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        …and they’re probably vegan.

        I’m not so sure about that. I think lots of vegans would appreciate lampshading the brutality of slaughtering cute little baby sheep.

        My bet would be on an omnivore that thinks of themselves as an animal lover getting upset by being made to feel cognitive dissonance.

  • MTK@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ironic, maybe stopping eating meat if you think it’s horrible to view animals as walking meals?

    • BradleyUffner@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      One can eat meat without celebrating that an animal had to die to get it. The celebration just makes you look like a serial killer…

          • rckclmbr@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I would argue that looking at a live animal and saying it looks tasty is normal, especially compared with other omnivores and carnivores. Looking at a processed hamburger and saying the same thing is much less natural IMO

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

              If you want to limit this to what’s “natural”, you had better be eating all your meat raw. Saying a live animal looks tasty makes it sound like you want to eat it alive.

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

        Are you an animal? Yes. Do lions fucking mourn their kill?no that’d make them insane. It’s crazy to feel bad about being a natural predator lol!

    • stevedidWHAT@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      How is that at all ironic. People are protesting his savagery in his behavior prior to doing something most of us do and have always done since the beginning of time.

      It’s obvious to the rest of us (obviously not you) that we’re upset not about his meal eating, but because of his taunting and his apathy.

      Just you out here pushing self-confirming narratives

  • Fr❄stb☃️te@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’ve shot and killed my own cow, I skinned it, cut it, and roasted it over a massive fire pit. The locals were loving every second of it happening, and I can totally agree with Ramsay.

    Just remember to use Mint Sauce/Jelly on the lamb, its like opening a portal to flavourtown.

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

      Chicken with a knife. Oh so so good. If you are going to eat meat you should be willing to do it yourself at least once in your life.

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

      I love lamb. I love organ meats and I wish we had a larger variety of animals available where I live. I miss italy… I love handling meat and making it into something delicious. I would watch the lamb behind my house and be excited knowing Christmas and Easter was coming just so we got to eat roast lamb.

    • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      To be fair, these are very young animals. Lamb is just a name they use for “baby sheep” to make it more palatable. It’s the same with “veal”.

      I eat lots of animals, but I don’t like eating the baby ones. Haven’t had one in at least a decade, and I really don’t think I’m missing out on anything.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The reason for the name isn’t to make it more palatable, at least originally. The name for the animal comes from the peasants, speaking old English, and the name for the food came from the nobility speaking French, who didn’t have to deal with the animals. We call adult sheep meat mutton, for example, not to make it palatable, but because of the history of the language. Same for deer/venison, pig/pork, cow/beef, etc.

        Edit: actually I don’t know if this is true for lamb, but for veal and the rest it’s true.

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

          In my language, which is very distant from the english/frank dicotomy, we never had that distinction between peasant and nobility food and still we get a lot of words to distinguish between meats.

          Mutton is either carneiro/ovelha (ram/sheep) or just chanfana (this word is used to denote the meat comes from a fully matured animal, over a minimum of two years old, usually around four or five).

          Lamb can either be borrego (most commonly used word) or anho (a less used word, alledgely tied to the time we were under moorish occupation).

          The words are imperative and not there to make things more palatable; these can’t be thrown around to designate the meat solely, as the meat designates the animal and vice versa.

          • TWeaK@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            They also live better than chickens though.

            The person I was replying to was referring to not wanting to eat baby sheep because they’re young, I was pointing out that another meat they probably eat has an even shorter lifespan. Point being, if you’re against eating baby sheep because they’re young, you should also probably be against eating chicken, because they’re younger and have an even worse life.

            • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Thats completely and entirely dependant on the farm, not their being chickens.

              Again, “younger” is relative to the lifespan of an animal. We dont eat chicks.

              And the quality of life for a chicken is not based on its age or net time spent living, but by the type of farm who owns them.

              You dont have a point or statement here.

              • TWeaK@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Again, “younger” is relative to the lifespan of an animal. We dont eat chicks.

                No. We just breed them such that they grow so much muscle mass the chicken couldn’t live much longer than its harvested lifespan. It will be unable to stand up, and rot to death on the spot. Other breeds of chickens have much longer lives, 5-10 years, but meat chickens only live 6-7 weeks.

                I do have a point, you just can’t accept that you’re a little bit more ignorant in these matters than I am.

                • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Which, again, is breed and farm owner specific, and has exactly zero to do with age of the animal on both a species specific tims span and net time alive.

                  Do you think I, a farm worker, do not understand the nuance of farm animals? Or are you just too pig headed to admit you were wrong and are now trying to pretend that any and every issue with farm animals is secretly about the amount of time they are alive before we eat them?

  • HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    I do this at the county fair all the time before the auction. “ooo, that one looks tasty” “look at the haunches on that fucker he looks delicious” it’s so fun