this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2026
189 points (67.4% liked)

memes

22489 readers
2479 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bl4ckp1xx13@lemmy.dbzer0.com 77 points 1 month ago (105 children)

As much as I find chickens, and all avians in general, cute and I find it sickening the way they are treated... I do love eggs, they're tasty, versatile, easy to cook, and unbelievably healthy.

I think the differential we have to identify is one thing, and that is scale.

I am not a vegan, I do not believe it is wrong to consume animals or animal-sourced products, however I do support animal welfare and believe that if we are to raise livestock for consumption they should be treated as the sentient, thinking, feeling creatures that they are and cared for accordingly.

Imagine instead of human and animal rights we just had "sentient rights", for example.

Being able to test for sentience is a topic in and of itself, and out of scope for my argument.

I think there is no harm done in, a hypothetical world where people had the space to do such a thing, raising our own livestock, limited to individual homesteads or the immediate settlement (a local town market, for example).

The line where it becomes unethical is quite obvious really, are the animals treated as living things, or machines to simply fuel and feed to grow them for slaughter and harvest? Yes, in my example of fair treatment the goal may be to raise them for eventual slaughter, but its their lifelong treatment where this applies, not the overall objective.

[–] mathemachristian@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 month ago (8 children)

if we are to raise livestock for consumption they should be treated as the sentient

this is a contradiction in itself.

It is normal and healthy for people to empathize with the animals they eat, to be concerned about whether or not they are living happy lives and to hope they are slaughtered humanely. However, if it is unethical to harm these animals, then it is more unethical to kill them.

Killing animals for food is far worse than making them suffer. Of course, it is admirable that people care so deeply about these animals that they take deliberate steps to reduce their suffering (e.g. by purchasing "free-range" eggs or "suffering free" meat). However, because they choose not to acknowledge the right of those same animals to live out their natural lives, and because slaughtering them is a much greater violation than mistreatment, people who eat 'humane' meat are laboring under an irreconcilable contradiction.

from https://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/humane-meat

[–] some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

The "natural life" of all animals bred for meat ends with their slaughter, by definition. Otherwise they wouldn't exist? Their purpose is not to die of old age, that itself would be a horribly cruel existence past the point when slaughter would normally occur.

None of these creatures exist in nature. If they're going to exist at all, why not give the best life and fulfillment of purpose if you can?

[–] mathemachristian@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

you have an incredibly bleak outlook on the "purpose" of a life. The slave is bred for the purpose of toiling for their master their entire life, does that justify anything? Hell the only reason the worker gets a wage is so they can work for the capitalist. The only reason people get maternity leave etc. is to breed more workers, that's your purpose in life.

Only the oppressor has a free choice in their lifes purpose. Well, somehow they always choose to oppress more so who knows. At least we have that old debate finally sorted.

[–] some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Your examples are false equivalences from where I stand. Slavery, capitalism...these are human systems. Of course the people inside have their own goals and desires. Much of agriculture is wontonly bleak, but not by definition. People still exist without slavery, it is not the same for a meat chicken. They really shouldn't exist, and ideally they wouldn't, but they're not going away anytime soon.

What is it that makes slavery bad?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (101 replies)