This is why I’m a pesca-pescatarian. I only eat fish that eat other fish.
To be completely serious, thats a bad idea. Predatory fish accumulate lots of mercury and shit in their meat.
To add to this, I’ve read recommendations from public health orgs to eat no more than two portions of oily fish a week, and minimise consumption of especially high sources like tuna steaks.
Some consumption is still recommended for omega 3s, though there are algae-based supplements for EPA and DHA as well as the fish ones. Flaxseed and some nuts are great sources of ALA, but afaik its conversion to EPA and DHA isn’t great and consuming all three is a good idea.
(Disclaimer: I am not a nutritionist. Verify things yourself before making dietary changes.)
Sure, animals eats animals, so I can eat cat too. It’s natural.
Can someone explain this template to me?
Ig it’s basically some type of “surprise, motorscooter!” Response to a slogan-rank argument.
I’m afraid that’s classified information
SJ Voice: The fuck you mean classified?!? Motherfucker?
OP will be real dangerous when he learns fish also don’t ask for consent.
They don’t? I’ve been wasting my time.
The difference is that the fish needs to eat the other fish. We don’t need ANY animal products. So every killed animal suffered and lost their life for 10min of taste for us that we didn’t need. Being vegan is so easy in 2023.
taste
what about vitamins? proteins and other nutrients
like omega 3 fatty acid majorly found in fishes
You can take them as supplements. It’s the same for your body. Oh and you are already doing that, because they give supplements to the animals they raise and kill, we are just eliminating the middleman.
very natural
Worth noting that many non-vegans are vitamin deficient and some medical authorities, including the UK’s, even recommend that everyone take vitamin D supplements. Also, please reconsider using your Internet connection, that isn’t very natural either.
as I said to the other guy, I’m not saying not natural is bad. But what op is implying is that getting the same stuff from natural sources is bad. That I just don’t agree with. It’s just the natural order of things. I have other options, yes, but I don’t consider the default natural source of things to be bad, so I don’t feel the need to switch. Animals eat animals all the time. And they don’t do it “humanely” either.
Those factory farmed animals are further away from “natural” than a smartphone
Animals don’t have the options we do. That argument fails.
Plus, that argument could be used to justify rape and murder. Perfectly natural. They don’t breed humanely.
What if the animals just ate plants instead?
Why is it worse to get things from less natural sources? Ignoring that everybody get some of their vitamins from less natural sources, e.g. animals injected with B12, cereals fortified with iron, water and toothpaste with fluoride, synthesised morphines instead of smoking opium - would you say these things are bad too because they are less natural? And if so, why?
Also, do you take all of your moral code from the worst things animals do? I hold myself to a higher standard and don’t eat my kids, rape, or fling shit at each others.
never said it was worse. what I did say is it’s not better either
Cyanide occurs naturally. Water can be made in a lab by mixing Hydrogen and Oxygen and applying heat.
Is Cyanide good for you when occurring naturally and water bad for you when artificially synthesized?
no. But it is also not the case that nature intended for us to consume artificially synthesized anything
nature intended
Nature doesn’t intend anything, it simply is. We are, in the grand scheme of things, not separate from nature, and in this sense everything we do is natural. If you’re using “natural” to distinguish things from the results of human civilization, then eating animal products stemming from animal agriculture is just as “unnatural” as supplements, as both are products of civilization.
Are you a nudist?
Natural is such a stupid argument. Is it natural for us to use a smartphone? Sit in a car and drive around? Work 8h a day instead of being with your peer group? Breed a fast growing special kind of animal, feed it with chemical ingredients and plants that don’t grow here only to eat them? Eat processed sugar? I think you get where I am going. Stop using this bullshit argument and take some supplements, your body will thank you.
I’m not saying that supplements are bad. What I am saying is that getting those things from their original source is not bad either. And no argument will get me to see it as such. You can have your supplements, it doesn’t affect me. But I will not feel guilty of doing what nature always intended me to do: i.e. eat stuff
There are plenty of plant sources of Omega 3. Flax seeds, walnuts, soybeans, and canola oil all have decent amounts of omega 3 in them. As for protein, legumes generally have a bunch.
Really, the only thing a vegan needs to supplement is B12, but even that gets added to a bunch of stuff like breakfast cereals and plant milks if you consume those.
Flax seeds, walnuts, soybeans, and canola oil all have decent amounts of omega 3 in them
They also take an enormous amount of resources to cultivate and process at industrial scale.
Wait until you learn what cattle gets fed. Spoiler: it is soy
Wait until you learn that industrial 'murica isn’t the entirety of the planet.
I am not american and I dont want to be one. The feed for animals raised for their meat in the EU and a lot of other countries that have industrial animal farms is comprised out of several plants and nutrient supplements, and a big part of that feed is soy and corn, both things that are grown mostly to feed animals.
How does one milk a plant?
You can make your own plant milk usually by soaking/boiling nuts/seeds in water and then blending that together. Some people use juicers for this, and then some people run the blended liquid through a filter to remove any bits. Cashew milk is lovely if homemade!
But why call in Milk then? Shouldnt it be called Nut juice or Seed juice?
You’ll have to ask the people who started calling them milks hundreds of years ago.
I do it to piss off dairy farmers specifically. They hate it that I get to call it plant milk and that’s really funny to me.
They have a lot more in common with dairy milk than they do juice. And they’re also commonly used as dairy milk alternatives. Plant milk is a much better descriptor even if juice might be more “accurate”.
Whataboutism
This isn’t whataboutism. Whataboutism isn’t about using the words “what about”, it’s about misdirecting the conversation to a seemingly related but actually an unrelated topic in order to counter argue the point. It’s a sub-type of ad-hominem attack, a fallacy.
The person you’re responding to is directly answering why people need to eat fish (I’m not validating the claim, just explaining) with sarcastic questions starting with what about.
Dude actually said “what about….”
Again, the wording is not the issue
Guy says “whatabout” and goes on to bring up something else to compare, and you’re saying it’s not a whatabout?
ROFL!
He’s not bringing something else to compare. You can rephrase the discussion like this:
Claim: We don’t need to eat fish. It is not necessary for humans.
Counter claim: we need to eat fish because humans need nutrients such as omega 3 fatty acids.
This is a direct dispute. The claim and counter claims have not been changed. They are both directly on topic.
Here is an example of whataboutism.
Person1: Biden says 1 + 2 = 4! Biden is wrong!
Person2: But Trump said 1 + 2 = 1000000! He’s even more wrong!This argument does not address the claim that Biden is right or wrong. He does not talk about the problem. Person2 is misdirecting by bringing a separate person as form of counter attack. They’re both wrong. Trump being more wrong does not validate Biden’s incorrect answer. Like I said, whataboutism is a subtype of ad hominem attack.
It’s also possible person2 could’ve said: What about Trump? He said, 1 + 2 = 1000000!
It’s easy to formulate whataboutism by using the words “what about”, and it is done so commonly. That’s why it is called whataboutism. But again, what is being said is important, not how it is said.
A person3 could say: What about 3?
This is not whataboutism. He’s showing what is his side to the argument. Even if the person3 gave the wrong answer like “what about 2?” It is still not whataboutism as they are still talking about the problem rather than misdirecting.
Edit: Grammar
Actual proteins you need supplements for if you go vegan
No you don’t. Literally every plant contains EVERY amino acid in varying amounts. You don’t need to supplement protein as a vegan.
Would you believe that I don’t want to eat just plants and pills for each meal? Would you also believe that I disagree with the industrialization of farming and the animal abuse that is so commonly paired with it.
There are humane ways to eat meat, and while they’re difficult to find, it’s a lot easier than eating what most people would consider disgusting everyday.
Yes you don’t want to just eat plants, hence you are eating animals for taste pleasure.
Why do you think it’s okay to kill someone for pleasure? What’s humane about that?
Animals other than humans aren’t people, that’s why it’s okay. You should be the first law enforcement official that prosecutes predatorial non-human animals
Ploughing fields for plants kills animals too
Man, you are gonna be real mad when you learn how conservation and wildlife management works
Literally every plant contains EVERY amino acid in varying amounts.
Guess we can all survive on grass then. Agriculture and societies were a mistake, let’s just become cattle and chill all day /s
That is just a non sequitur.
Sorry, I can’t stomach grass without some mayo or tomato sauce.
Or you can just eat plants that you can actually digest but that wouldn’t make for a snarky comment huh?
You said “Literally every plant”. It’s right up there.
Elitism
“Whataboutism” was invented by the british to say whenever the irish talked about oppression. It was invented to oppress. It is not a fallacy, saying “Whataboutism” is.
You consider humans superior in intellect and ability compared to all other animals yet can’t grasp the fact that some humans have chosen to use said superior intellect and ability to avoid killing other animals?
You consider humans superior in intellect and ability compared to all other animals
Does he?
Isn’t that usually the argument that anti-vegans use? That we’re the top predator due to our intelligence and technology and therefore we have an intrinsic right to the lives of other animals?
Yeah they have definitely tried that angle in the past
Nope. My argument is simple. Steak tastes good.
That would be an incredibly bad argument. Because it’s not a motive, it’s just descriptive. “we’re at the top so we have the right” it’s just a claim we make for ourself without considering how we got there… and what if a smarter, more advanced alien race would come down to earth and conquer us? Would they agree that since they are top of the chain now they have “the right” to slaughter us? Obviously not. So then we would claim: “we’re smart! Look, we know math. And love… we also feel pain.”. So these are important to us.
The best argument against vegans is always the fact that plants also are living beings. Now if you are gonna create hierarchy of living beings to justify your food consumption, well…
Cows don’t photosynthesize they eat a shit ton of plants to make a tiny amount of meat so if you really care about plants you would eat the plants directly and skip the middlemen that waste 90% of the plant matter
Plants aren’t sentient and you need more plants to feed a cow (and then eat the cow) than if you just eat plant-based.
We can’t prove plants are sentient. Then again, neither can we prove humans are sentient.
What do you mean? With our scientific knowledge we can prove plants aren’t sentient. They don’t have Central Nervous System.
And how does that prove anything? Can you prove sentience requires neurons? The clear answer is no, that’s just a confortable assumption we make to not be shackled to phylosophical inertness.
What do you think they have to feed to the animals? If you believe plants to be important enough, you should go vegan to reduce their suffering. Also, do you get really annoyed at people walking on grass? How about if you see someone kick a dog? I swear, when it comes to the veganism devate, normally sensible people completely lose all sense of logic.
Plants aren’t sentient though, that’s a pretty good reason to put them lower on the hierarchy of living beings that are morally ok to eat. And it’s quite likely that fewer plants die for a vegan diet than for a standard diet, as animals need a lot of feed to produce meat, eggs and dairy. Some percentage of the plant protein, fats, and carbs will always be lost along the way when we feed them to animals, so eating those plants directly is more efficient.
Sentience is hard to measure though. Also I had a weird discussion with my neighbour once who argued that in order to kill fewer sentient beings, we should eat the bigger ones as the ratio of meat per sentience was better, so we should really eat whales. Which made it pretty obvious to me that a) he was nuts and b) sentience might not be the best indicator for ethic food consumption.
/edit That doesn’t mean that I oppose the idea that eating plants is better. I’m just arguing against sentience as a good indicator.
Except his argument is flawed on its own grounds, because the bigger the animal the more food it takes to support it before you come along and kill it. Assuming we had an objective measure of sentience, it’s pretty likely most non-herbivores are costing more sentience than your save by eating them.
At which point we should just cause the extinction of all animals except humans and the few plants needed to support humans. See how that’s a horrible metric?
What would be a good indicator then if not sentience?
I learned from Nirvana that it’s okay to eat fish, 'cause they don’t have any feelings.
Robin pls.
Because we don’t need to
sigh Came from reddit to lemmy, still see stupid af carnist memes like this. Don’t know if it’s a win or what for the fediverse
I’m sorry, but I laughed at carnist. Lighten up.
Relax, I’m a carnist/flexitarian. There’s nothing wrong with attributing a name to non-vegans/non-vegetarians. The world isn’t divided into vegans/vegetarians and so called ‘normal people’. It’s just as normal to not eat meat in some parts of the world.
Carnist also sounds pretty cool
Yeah, the preferred term is bloodmouth
Vegans giving us the most metal nickname possible expecting us to not like it
Well, there are others like cheese breathers, pus quaffers, bee vomit suckers, chicken period munchers and so on.
Apart from cheese breather none of those hit the same, you need to get better slurs. Cheese breather also isn’t metal enough for my tastes. Stick with bloodmouth.
I like to go with morally bankrupt piece of shit loser
Hey! That’s not very nice. Please apologize!
IMO pus quaffer has some grind core vibes. That said, in real life, there’s nothing “metal” in animal exploitation. If your mindset is truly like “they call me bloodmouth, it’s metal, I’m a bloodmouth”, then I guess you’d be either a 12 year old or trolling. In either case, i hope you grow out of it.
That said, in real life, there’s nothing “metal” in animal exploitation.
Bro, pull up a video of a McDonald’s meat factory and tell me that shit ain’t metal as fuck
Also why are you mad that I’m not being serious this is the meme community not the philosophy community
Other options include: corpse eater, flesh sucker, and meat mouth. :V
Bloodmouth just rolls off the tongue better than all those, please continue calling me that
Yeah it’s way better.
Pisses a lot of people off too, which is why I use it lol
You do you, soil muncher.
Why would anyone be pissed off by that word?
you lighten up on the animal exploitation maybe?
Im proud to call myself one! Cool name
Since im on a pure carnivore diet for health reasons. The phrase carnist sounds so metal. Thanks for a new term to call myself
Out of curiosity what illness do you have that makes you unable to eat plants
Buy a man eat fish, he day, teach fish man, to a lifetime
Buy a man? That sounds like human trafficking dude. 🤨
Build a man a campfire and he’s warm for the night; set a man on fire and he’s warm for the rest of his life
GNU Terry Pratchett.
How come fish can eat their own offspring but we can’t do the same to ours?
Have you ever tried eating a baby? No?
Don’t knock it until you’ve tried it.
I suppose it was only a matter of time before the vegans vs meat eaters oozed on over from Reddit.
You mean, people?
Nobody is saying that fish are moral agents that can empathise with other beings. That doesn’t man that they’re not moral subjects; the ability to understand that one is causing harm is not a prerequisite for the ability to suffer oneself. I think everyone knows this intuitively, but it does feel good to have our less moral habits be justified by memes that we would otherwise find to be illogical.
By eating vegetables you are doing harm anyway, they are living organisms after all.
Even if we grant that plant “pain” is 100% morally equivalent to the pain of other beings (it isn’t, and you don’t earnestly believe that), we still have to eat them as a matter of biology, since humans aren’t producers and must consume nutrients from other life. It’s the same reason we can’t pass moral judgment on a carnivore like a lion for eating a Zebra.
I am curious. Do you believe that humans has always had the option to not eat animals?
What I am asking is, is there some point during the evolution of homo sapience where it shifted from being morally acceptable to being morally wrong to eat other animals?
Morality depends on culture. What appeared through evolution is culture, but no one culture or the right culture. What is right in one culture is wrong in another one.
I’m not the same person, but it’s not about our physical evolution imo. It’s about advances in agriculture, our understanding of nutrition and ability to supplement or fortify foods with things like vitamin B12. Without those things, trying to cut out all animal products would probably be a terrible idea. With them, it becomes a viable choice for people with a good understanding of nutrition and without health problems that clash with veganism.
Morality depends on culture, what is wright in one culture is wrong in another. This is easy to see and pretty obvious, unless that you are some kind of supremacist that thinks that your beliefs are the only valid. If your problem is pain you can kill the animal with one shot in the head and it will be painless, some farmers do this in order to avoid suffering.
“Bro I really wanna eat your dog bro. Bro it’s my culture bro just let me take a little bite bro I swear it’s the most delicious thing you’ve ever tasted. Bro just let me eat your dog bro, what are you some kinda racist?”
Other people have pointed out the differences between plants and most animals, but it’s also worth noting that livestock need to eat plants. Because energy is wasted between each stage in a food chain, an omnivorous diet likely kills more plants anyway.
Common mistake, but plants are not moral subjects. If you harm any animal, even an insect, it will respond in ways that you or I would; fleeing, retaliating, or generally just panicking. I think you already understand that plants do not (although they do have biochemical adaptations to sense and respond to stress).
While plants don’t possess some of the superior organs of animals, we’re constantly being surprised by how much they actually sense and communicate. I wouldn’t discount the similarities between the two kingdoms as being lesser than their differences just yet.
Ants only “have biochemical adaptation to sense and respond to stress”.
You are right, but I believe putting a cease to life is not inherently bad. If we could kill animals without letting them feel anything, that wouldn’t really be bad.
I mean sure, but the animal agriculture industry is typically inhumane and cruel to animals while they’re still alive, because it’s more profitable that way. Minimising the suffering they feel when they die is not going to do much really.
And if someone did that to you?
They wouldn’t be able to think about it because they’d be dead.
This is why we should be killing pigs with nitrogen, rather than CO2. CO2 is how a mammal determines it is suffocating, meanwhile the air is mostly made up of nitrogen so we ignore it. However, it’s precisely this which makes it dangerous to humans working nearby (also the fact that CO2 is heavier than air so you can have open pits), and it’s ruled too expensive to do it humanely.
Or we could you know just not gas and kill pigs.
We both know that’s not going to happen. If I want to have bacon, would you rather me quickly and painlessly kill the pig, or use a blunt butter knife to kill them?
Maybe we should eat you instead of the pig. I’m pretty sure the pig does not want bacon.
Thanks, now I know you’re completely clueless about even the most basic things. Pigs will happily eat bacon.
Happily? Lol
I sincerely believe it’s going to happen. Furthermore of course when presenting between two horrible choices I would the choose the less horrible option. Fortunately the choice is not between these two it’s actually, “Would you rather me quickly and painlessly kill the pig, use a blunt butter knife or not kill them”. I think when not forgetting the third option it’s clear it’s the better one.
All I can say is that you’re much more of an optimist than I.
I like bacon. Also there’s something to be said of the simple fact that almost all life eats other life. Why is plant life lesser than animal life to you?
However, the day they start selling lab grown bacon I will gladly switch to that.
Because life is not the most important factor to me. Sentience is.
But let’s entertain the idea life was the most important factor. Raising animals to eat them kills way more plant life than just eating plants directly as you need to clear a ton of land and grow a ton of plant just to feed all these animals you’re raising. So even if that was the differentiating factor not exploiting other non human animals would be the way to go as you would preserve more life.
Liking something to me is not a solid argument to exploit another sentient being. If I was saying that I liked kicking dogs it would not make it ok to do so for example.
I didn’t say preservation of all life was the most important factor. I said almost all life eats other life.
There’s a big difference between kicking a dog and eating food.
You’ve clearly asked me why I considered plant life less than animal life which I answered. I then went further and showed that this question was actually irrelevant to the point I was making because even if I were to consider it as equal or more important I should still plants instead of animal products.
There is no difference between the two when not in a survival situation. One is done for taste buds pleasure the other might be done because you enjoy kicking dogs.
Actually I would dare say that kicking a dog is better than killing it and eating it. At least I know I’d prefer getting kicked rather than killed and eaten.
Ethical consideration has to extend to more than just painless death to be worth a damn. I can’t walk into an infant ward and painlessly murder infants in their sleep for a reason.
Yes, the reason being they are human.
Why is that a reason?
Because most people view it as morally wrong to kill another human.
