this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2025
477 points (97.6% liked)
Memes
49831 readers
1018 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
People who treat pets as property are not good people. This guy gets it.
FTFY
I’m not a militant vegan, I do make occasional exemptions for ethically sourced animal products. But the distinction between pets and other animals is just hypocritical.
I fully agree but we're omnivores and to be healthy some meat should be eaten. Yeah, we eat way WAY too much meat, but that is a different issue.
As soon as lab meat is a proper thing (still not sure about the viability of that one, though) I will finally eat meat and not feel bad about it
A person can be healthy without consuming meat
With very specific food alternatives, maybe, sure. If you want to go without, I applaud you. Once factory meat comes out, I'll switch right away. Away with the mistreatment of animals.
But please don't be one of those "we're not omnivores, it was all a conspiracy by the meat industry!" types. Yes, we humans are omnivorous and you'd be begging for a scrap of meat only a hundred or so years ago. Be happy wr live in an age where you actually get to make the decision to finally skip meat and pray we don't return to those times (not guaranteed with trump now)
A person maybe, I can't. Doctors' statement. And like me, probably many others.
Of course then, a specific medical condition can require it.
I agree with you in principle, but until at which point we have the technological and production capabilities in place to fully feed the planet without the need for livestock and other animal sources of nutrients, the distinction has to exist. We may have gotten to the point of being technologically capable but the human population is very much reliant on animal sources to sustain itself. And so the distinction is necessary. I’m not arguing that it’s right or just or morally correct. But it’s where we are and what is required to continue existing as a species.
And by no means am I saying that those animals we see as livestock don’t deserve to be treated with care and respect while they are alive. I just believe the distinctive categories of pets and livestock are an unfortunate requirement of our current situation.
Do you have a source for that? What % of the global meat consumption is actually necessary and what is just for pleasure? And don’t get me started on food waste…
Do you mean scale up as a species? We’ve existed for how many thousands of years in a sustainable way?
A requirement for what? You said we need animals to sustain ourselves. What do we need the distinction of pets for?
I’ll pass.
You wanna share your opinion as it differs to mine, I’m happy to engage with that. But I am absolutely not interested in whatever tit for tat, nit-picky debate that wants to be.
I’m saying as long as the consumption of animals and animal products is part of the most viable means for satisfying the nutritional debt of the human species, the human psychological need to distinguish between pets and livestock is necessary.
Do we need, or is it right to keep pets? is its own set of moral questions.
We've had the capacity for feeding the entire population without animal products since before iron.
We've had the capacity to do so with an overabundance of calories that the population keeps growing larger since the Haber process was discovered.
Arguing that we should distinguish between animals and livestock until we can live without animal products is incredibly disingenuous.
Until A, no B doesn't work as an argument when you already have A.
Edit: I'm not the same person you were talking with before.