Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

The_Paradoxigm t1_j2zm2cg wrote

Reply to comment by DemptyELF in How many animals do you eat in your lifetime? by ImplementAny4362

Agreed but as other have said, you're not "saving" any animals by cutting out meat like this chart implies.

Cutting down on meat consumption isn't a bad thing, it can improve your health, but the animals on those farms are still going to die.

It's not like you skipping that hamburger is going to give some cow a happy retirement.

0

DemptyELF t1_j2zn2oi wrote

Can’t grok the “somebody’s got to do it” rationale. If more folks stopped wanting, less creatures would need to die unnaturally and prematurely. You cannot get through this life without causing pain but you can try to minimize the totals and be conscious of and grateful for what you consume. Less is more. Now to practice what I preach.

7

Altruistic_Tennis893 t1_j3169vw wrote

I am so fed up with people trying to argue against veganism without any understanding of how supply and demand works.

−2

The_Paradoxigm t1_j316sla wrote

I'm not arguing against veganism.

I'm arguing against this data claiming animals will be saved by us not eating them.

They will not. No animals are being saved.

Continuing as we are now, results in more animals being killed.

Eating less meat results in less animals being born.

At no point is an animal saved from the slaughter house. There is no happy ending, only death or non-existence.

3

Altruistic_Tennis893 t1_j3188h7 wrote

Fine, if your argument is based on pedantry then so be it.

Nowhere in the source does it say "saved from the slaughter house" so you can equally interpret "saved" as "saved from a life of suffering which will end in brutal slaughter"

−2

The_Paradoxigm t1_j318d8e wrote

But that just means they never existed in the first place. How is that any different? It's still one less cow.

5

fnarpus t1_j318g1e wrote

Do you consider not having kids to be equal to killing a kid?

2

The_Paradoxigm t1_j318o7z wrote

No, but I don't consider it as saving a kid either. The kid still doesn't exist either way.

I mean, if you wanna bring humans into the mix, be careful, cause if we're gonna say that not having a kid is better than letting them be born into terrible conditions... that's dangerously close to eugenics.

3

fnarpus t1_j318wrb wrote

I'm talking at a higher level. If you think that the only think that matters is the existence of a kid, then you are suggesting that using contraception is morally equal to killing a kid.

2

The_Paradoxigm t1_j3198m9 wrote

That's ridiculous.

My argument is over the use of the word saved, nothing is being saved.

Getting an abortion doesn't "save" a kid from a bad life, it just prevents it. Prevention is not "saving". Noone is being rescued. You can't save something that doesn't exist.

4

fnarpus t1_j319j8a wrote

OK. Let's use this as an example.

People were forced to breed to create more slaves. Was this overall a good thing? When this practice was banned, were people saved from slavery?

The people born through this practice were guaranteed a lifetime of slavery. Not being born into this life is preferable.

1

The_Paradoxigm t1_j31a05r wrote

Let's try something more relevant and current.

There are countries where people live in abject poverty, where children starve to death every day.

Should we prevent the people living in those areas from having kids? In order to "save" those kids?

Because, that's literally eugenics.

4

fnarpus t1_j31brv6 wrote

Who is talking about preventing anyone from doing anything? The reality is that it's better to not be born than to starve to death at a young age. Do you agree with that?

1

The_Paradoxigm t1_j31buqx wrote

I have no opinion on that.

My point is not being born isn't the same as being saved.

4

fnarpus t1_j31c1xt wrote

Seems like you're hanging your hat on being pedantic, rather than addressing the point.

1

The_Paradoxigm t1_j33n9xr wrote

That was my argument from the beginning though.

Wanna eat less meat? Fantastic. Just don't fool yourself into thinking you're saving some animals life, cause you're not.

2

fnarpus t1_j33oy7z wrote

You are preventing animals being born into a life of suffering. What word would you prefer?

0

The_Paradoxigm t1_j33q9rq wrote

It doesn't matter what I prefer, that's not the argument I'm making.

I've said repeatedly, eating less meat is not a bad thing. There's plenty of benefits to it. I've even cut down my own portions.

My problem is with believing you're saving animals by doing so.

2

fnarpus t1_j33qqct wrote

So what word would you use that's better?

0

The_Paradoxigm t1_j33xs9f wrote

Talk about the health benefits, or the lessening impact of climate change. Or just present the information without the implication of saving animals.

2

fnarpus t1_j33xwru wrote

So how would you describe the concept in the infographic?

0

The_Paradoxigm t1_j33y85c wrote

"Here's how many animals the average person eats over a lifetime "

Done.

3

fnarpus t1_j349vpz wrote

Right. But this infographic is showing the impact that a single meat based day has on that figure.

So how would you phrase it from that perspective?

−1

The_Paradoxigm t1_j34yvvh wrote

"How many fewer animals you eat by eliminating 1 meal a week"

Come on man, this isn't hard.

3

fnarpus t1_j372n9q wrote

But the animals won't ever have existed to be eaten. So you can't say that.

−2

The_Paradoxigm t1_j38akli wrote

Uh, how so?

2

fnarpus t1_j38dcy2 wrote

The animals aren't born. So you can't not eat what doesn't exist.

−1

The_Paradoxigm t1_j38f3vm wrote

That doesn't make any sense, you're just trying to win the argument at this point lol

You present it as "you will eat fewer animals" which is true, and you let people decide for themselves if the ramifications of that is worth it to them and what it means.

What you don't do is present your data with a blatant lie in the title in order to push people's opinions to your own viewpoint

2