• NotAPenguin@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    We get told this literally no matter how we approach the subject lol.
    Which approach is it you think I’m using here and why is it ineffective?
    It’s not like I’ve been especially rude or anything?

    Which approach worked on you?

    • Melpomene@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’ve been hostile (“reactionary fucks”) and you’ve hijacked the broader discussion referenced in the article (Musk’s Twitter showing terrible videos including human death, animal cruelty, etc) to make a point about meat consumption generally versus videos on Twitter showing the intentional and purposeful infliction of pain on animals for pleasure.

      My meat consumption is down quite a bit. Information on substitutes, good recipes, studies on the intelligence of (for example) squid and such have shifted me into eating less meat. While I’m sure you’d prefer people not eat meat at all, convincing 5 people to cut their meat consumption 50% is better than convincing 0 people to cut their meat consumption 100% , no?

      • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The “reactionary fucks” was in response to hostility. Hijacking broader topic? I’m sure you’re on reddit complaining about John Oliver taking over the broader topic that is generally on r/pics. I’ll let you ruminate on that until you see the obvious point.

        I’m sure in history some abolitionists wanted to get rid of slavery all together, but just minimizing the number of slaves is better than nothing right so they shouldn’t have been so absolutist. At least according to your own argument unless you admit to being hypocritical or simply not understanding the argument of those you’re responding to. You can’t be neither though.

        You’re putting forth either bad faith arguments or extremely toxic ones, under the guise of polite society. It’s kind of sickening if you aren’t actually intentionally doing it.

      • NotAPenguin@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        (“reactionary fucks”)

        After my comments were downvoted to hell lol.

        I’ve not hijacked anything, I contributed to the conversation and everyone lost their minds because they don’t wanna think about the animal abuse they support every day.

        convincing 5 people to cut their meat consumption 50% is better than convincing 0 people to cut their meat consumption 100% , no?

        Would you feel the same about abolishing slavery?

        • Melpomene@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Would I prefer that 5 people free half of their slaves versus no one freeing any slaves? Of course, why would I want everyone to stay enslaved if I could free some and continue to work to free others? Would you prefer that everyone who is currently a slave remain enslaved until we convince the entire world to free their slaves?

          I think they more prefer to focus on the issue (the state of Twitter) in a post about Twitter, versus going off on tangents that would otherwise make for interesting conversation.

            • grahamsz@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I think it’s really a difference about whether you approach meat consumption as a moral issue or an environmental and social one.

              I tend to agree with @Melpomene that any improvement is a good thing, maybe a better analogy would be in CO2 emissions. If we can convince 10% of people to bike to work one day a week then that’ll make meaningful difference, and it’s exactly the same from an emissions standpoint as taking X cars off the road.

              Convincing someone, at least in the USA, to do without a car is fundamentally difficult, but convincing them to use it less is a significantly more accessible proposition.

              • NotAPenguin@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                I just don’t see reduction as enough or what should be advocated when it comes to something so serious as billions of animals getting needlessly killed.

                • FlowVoid@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Billions of animals are killed wherever crops are grown.

                  Even if you are entirely vegan, animals have to die if you want to eat.

                  In fact, if your food is grown on a farm then you are probably contributing to more animal deaths than someone who obtains food from hunting or fishing.

                  • NotAPenguin@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Source on billions of crop deaths?

                    Besides, most plants grown are used for animal feed.

                    Killing animals when we don’t have to is inherently cruel, farming can be done without harming animals.

        • SSUPII@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          ???

          Slavery never ended suddenly, exactly like any other major change in society. Also its extremely off topic.