leberkaese said:
lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
Snipity do dah
Edit: words.
"Meat is a luxury article that contributes to pollution and animal abuse (greatly depending on the amount of cash you want to pay for your meat). Like so many luxury things it would be a lot better to completely go without it, that's true. But the same goes for electronics (do you really need a new smartphone instead of your old Nokia 3310?), cars (train and bicycle are the way to go!), power consumption (do you really need to sit in front of a PC and post stuff in here?), consumption of foood aside from meat (don't buy vegetables in the market, plant them all yourself) etc. Does that mean we have to stop using anything that is harmful to the environment in any way?"
This is a bit of a straw-man because my argument was never "that we shouldn't ever do things that are harmful to the environment. Ever." There is a proportional difference in the bad these things bring and they also differ in what lies for them in the future. Electronics unlike that of meat cannot be replaced by anything and they're absolutely fundamental in our society. There's an incredible lot we'd no longer have if we lost electronics. Furthermore, electronics also have potential to be more efficient, resourceful, and bring less damage. Unless we're talking about lab-grown meat then there's simply no way this industry can exist without an incredible amount of suffering and destruction. As for cars there aren't a lot of alternatives that function as efficiently as they do. Sometimes getting somewhere in the time that it would take for a car instead of a bike is vital. On top of all this, the pollution these vehicles bring is less than factory farming. As for power consumption, I don't think having dialogue is a poor use of it.
"The solution is to use everything in moderation. Educate people what their consumption costs aside from the money they spend - like pollution, abuse etc. They'll decide themselfs if this makes them wanna go vegetarian or just to back down a little bit on their consumption. There's nothing else you can and should do. Personally, I did set myself a limit of meat I eat each week, because I think that's the right way. But everyone should consider themselfs based on their education what's the right thing to do."
The problem with arguing for moderation is that there's presumption being made that it's warranted to begin with. As far as health goes then yes, eating meat in moderation probably won't give people cancer. As far as health goes, moderation is warranted. When it betters society, moderation is warranted. But what does factory farming do for our society that isn't solely indulgent and monetary? It can be completely replaced with the things we're already consuming and need to begin with. How is it acceptable to kill in moderation when the end game is purely decadent? If we were to flip this to any kind of animal cruelty that isn't universally accepted then the argument just doesn't work. Sometimes there is no place for moderation.
As for your point about letting people make their own decisions? Ehh, iffy. It's true that I'm saying that no one should eat meat but it's not like I'm holding a gun and forcing them to eat spinach or anything.
"But telling people that they really should go without it and denounce their posts in here leads to nothing. To the contrary. It will make people angry. It will drive them away from considering to become vegetarian or vegan themselfs. Because there's this guy that seems like he wants to tell the people that his way of living is the only reasonable way to go."
The alternative is saying nothing, which is worse.
There's another post I'd like to get to but I don't know how to do more than one quote in a single post and I'd rather not bother with the trouble so I'll get to it later. Besides, I don't want to be that guy that just spends all their time on a forum.
