• Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    8 days ago

    The fuck it’s not about the pigs. That’s like saying child rape isn’t about the children. What the fuck?

      • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        8 days ago

        This is such a blatant thought-terminating cliche. Those people are already looking for any excuse to disregard their own cruelty and violence. Tell me, Courtney, what COULD I have said that would have moved your heart? Seriously, tell me. What could I say to you that would make you sit with your cruelty and violence for even a moment? The truth is, you don’t fucking WANT me to make arguments that you will engage with, you don’t want to engage with them in the first place. It’s not the argument, it’s fucking YOU, Courtney.

      • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        8 days ago

        The animals we create ARE morally equivalent to our own children and are owed EXACTLY THE SAME unconditional love and protection.

        • goedel@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          8 days ago

          The animals we create ARE morally equivalent to our own children and are owed EXACTLY THE SAME unconditional love and protection.

          no, they’re not.

    • lokalhorst@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      It’s not only about the pigs. Of course there is an ethical aspect, but the ecological harm in terms of water/nutrient usage and CO2 emission are in the focus here. Your comparison is not helpful at all.

      • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 days ago

        The pigs are sufficient all on their own. Or do you only help vulnerable individuals when there is something in it for you personally?

        • FishFace@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 days ago

          Most meat-eaters are content for animals to be raided and killed in order to eat them, so focusing on ecology doesn’t require you to convince someone that animals have a moral value similar to that of human beings, which is a tall order.

        • lokalhorst@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 days ago

          I haven’t weighed up the ethical against the ecological impact at all, I have just said what the focus of the comment was you have answered to.

          If you are interested in my personal opinion - I am a vegetarian for 14 years now, because I cannot accept how we treat animals as a society in the context of factory farming, but also because of the ecological impact. I think eating meat consumes way too much resources.

          From a philosophical point of view I don’t think however that killing a pig is morally wrong, I just think the way we are doing it is wrong.

          If you like we can start a dialogue on this topic! But let’s exchange opinions and arguments and avoid being patronizing.

    • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      I don’t see it. So you’re saying that the six panels in the picture are meant to represent: pollution, pollution, pollution, pollution, pollution, and animal cruelty?

      Why would they break the pattern?