Where do they think meat comes from?
Their mom buys it for them
From the store, duh!
deleted by creator
Yeah I mean it makes me sad (as a veg) but is this out of character or really “wrong” to a meat eater? Like, that animal is exactly what you find to be very tasty and have no problem eating. What’s wrong with this given that ethical framework? If anything, he’s just being earnest lol
e: phrasing
deleted by creator
Anyone who thinks that’s all they are is either horribly desensitized or hasn’t spent any real time around farm animals.
I know lots of farmers who think exactly that. Stop projecting your self-righteous sense of morality on others.
Unless you’re going to invoke some actual philosophy, your opinion is just as moot as anyone else’s.
deleted by creator
Not a bad take.
Gordon Ramsay absolutely is not sheltered. He has killed and harvested his own animals many times.
As for hunters not doing this, I think you don’t know many hunters. I’m a hunter, have many hunter friends, and talk hunting with people any chance I get. I’ve never met a hunter who wouldn’t be ok with this(or even do it themselves). Granted this is anecdotal evidence from both of us, but still.
Also, some people genuinely don’t care about the animals we raise specifically for food, that’s all they are to them (I fall into this group). I see their lives as ours, they exist solely to feed us. That doesn’t mean I think they should have shitty living conditions until their time comes, they should be able to enjoy what little life they have.
deleted by creator
No, your anecdotal experiences are different, so they shouldn’t be used as a basis to influence or judge others.
deleted by creator
Was this anecdote included to justify the judgement?
Alternatively, every hunter and farmer I know who hasn’t become fully disassociated (the majority of them) respects the animals they eat too much to do something like this.
I’m not saying you’re wrong for judging others btw- just that in light of two equally anecdotal and contrasting experiences, the anecdotal evidence should not be included.
I never said it was made up, just that neither of our evidence is based on much.
As for being cringey? Call it what you want, but those specific animals literally only exist because they’re delicious, and we want to eat them. It doesn’t matter if you don’t like it, it’s fact.
Animals are here for us to enjoy. The exact meaning of that is up to each individual on this earth.
deleted by creator
Tbh, you’re both kinda touchy.
Nothing left to contribute? Guess the conversation is over then.
deleted by creator
Oh no the poor animal is going to get its feelings hurt before getting slaughtered 😢
Strikes me as completely the opposite. He’s going to the source overseeing the whole process. And obviously it’s going to be prepared with the utmost care and turned into a world class dish. Compared to Joe Schmo torching a factory farmed steak, it seems a lot more respectful
and also shows a disregard for where your food comes from
I don’t think you can acknowledge where your food is coming from anymore than this.
People’s perspectives on things are weird. I’m totally fine with vegans, vegetarians, meat eaters, whoever. But when someone who eats meat is excited because they think meat tastes good… why did you think they eat it??? Obviously they think it’s yummy, and obviously, to a certain degree, they see animals as a source of that. If you want to fight against that fine, but don’t act surprised that it exists.
Lots of people don’t really understand where meat comes from. They understand the concept that an animal has to die, but they prefer their meat comming out of a plastic package.
Example: we used to raise our own animals, I knew every single one by name and saw them grow up. When it was time to slaughter them we brought them to the butcher, got a carcass and the fur back. Guests could help feed the animals, feel the fluffiest pillow out of treated fur and I could tell them the name of the animal we served. However, most of them (obviously all meat eaters) could not comprehend at all, how we could slaughter and process those absolutely cute things.
I prefer to know where my meat comes from. Many people prefer not to, so they can loose appetite or get upset if they see the animal before it is brought to the butcher.
Everyone should, at least once, kill something for their meal. It makes you appreciate it, even if I still buy meat from Costco, etc.
I agree, or if they can’t handle it they shouldn’t be eating it. Distancing yourself from the killing is just mental. If you’re purchasing meat, you’re causing something to be butchered. If you can’t handle witnessing it/participating in it, you should reconsider eating it. The customer is still a participant who is willfully ignorant.
Bunnies are a good one. Also they’re easy to breed.
The meat is a bit more “stretchy” though.
Its considered disrespectful.
The moral take of meat eating is that we respect the animals we kill to survive, and that we dont waste or belittle the animal just because its food.
This is the reason local farms are “more ethical” than commercial farming, because theyre more likely to treat the animal with respect.
Ramsey here is getting flack cause its kinda disrespectful to the living thing he is going to eat.
I don’t think the animal was aware of the mockery
No one said it was?
Ok so what’s the problem? No victim, no crime.
You arent trying to not hurt the lambs feelings.
You respect the animal because that respect is what keeps you from forgeting that the lamb is still a living, thinking, feeling animal even when its going to become food.
When you respect your livestock, you feed them well, keep them groomed, treat them when sick, and keep them reasonably happy. You cant abuse your animals when you respect them.
Obviously this doesnt mean ramsay is an animal abuser. Im sure he just thinks its a funny joke. In the right contexts, it usually is.
I don’t think he can say anything that is comparable in disrespect to what happens in the average slaughterhouse (bad compared to ethically sourced meat? Sure, you could argue that)
Ok, and? You dont respect someone by finding the person who respects them the least and setting your bar 1 notch above that.
No, we eat everyone because they are TASTY! What Gordon is doing is AWESOME! I do the same every time I see any animal. ALL ANIMALS ARE FOOD!!!
Respect is a human concept. It isn’t in nature and it’s just to make people like you feel better about the fact that life means you gotta kill something to keep living. At least food is delicious.
The respect isnt to soothe the animals feelings.
The respect is to make sure you dont forget that the animal is also alive and feeling, and you still need to treat it well even though it will become food.
Its to keep forward in your mind that animal abuse is still abuse, even if the animal is meant for your dinner.
Respect is, also, abundant in nature. For starters, you and I arent aliens. But respect is an almost required aspect of most social species communal interactions. Corvids, other primates, snakes in heat, bees, etc.
deleted by creator
I don’t think ‘surprised’ is the word that really fits what is going on here. I’m a meat eater and even i think this is Unnecessary… inappropriate… in the same way that I hate idiot drivers even though I drive a car too.
but then your argument doesn’t really have any relevancy if it’s anything but pretending people are without the worldly experience you deem to have and believe we’re just over here clutching pearls over it.
People are pretty obviously protesting his behavior prior to dining/slaughter.
There’s such a thing as responsible, informed omnivores who don’t like this objectifying bone head (wonder what home life is like with Gordon) or his behavior towards something that will give it’s life to sustain us.
Removed by mod
It’s not the meat eating that’s immoral, it’s the industrialization of meat production that is - robbing an animal of all its freedom and all its chances to actually be alive. It kills evolution. It is anti-life.
What is happening on these industrialized meat farms is utterly disgusting and will become a crime once synthetic meat production is economically viable. It’s existentially wrong beyond any morals.
Absolutely can’t wait for lab grown meat to reach industrial scale.
Hunted meat is really ethical in the mean time, in my country that usually means pheasant (at the right time of year) or venison (which is unfortunately not cheap at all, I’d really like to see deer hunting for meat encouraged by the government).
I do eat farmed meat, but I definitely eat less of it than I used to.
Hunting is also beneficial to the health of game animal herds, and is a fundamental part of wildlife conservation.
So it can be ethical, healthy, and tasty to eat meat from killed animals.
Not true they hunt the wrong ones. In nature the sick and weak are eaten by predators. We shoot the healthiest ones. Bad idea.
OK smart guy, go ask any wildlife conservationist about it or just google it. I’m right and you are absolutely wrong.
Could you explain which part of eating meat is wrong? We have evolved to what we are today, thanks largely to our ancestors’ diets.
One pretty consistent moral among societies is that needlessly causing harm is considered wrong. Outside of lab grown, its impossible to acquire meat without grievously harming an animal. Further, the vast majority of our meat is NOT gained by hunting but instead by factory, and the conditions of meat factories are appalling and horrific. So yes, if we CAN get the nutrients we need without the consumption of meat, that is the most moral way to get our nutrition met. All that being said, even today, being able to meet all nutritional needs without any form of animal cruelty is an incredibly privileged position to be in, and we arent quite at the stage where its fair to judge others for not doing so
(edit: and I say this as a meat eater, meat is fuckin delicious and I dont want to give it up. I’m personally banking on lab grown meat becoming an economical option, at which point we have removed the ethical muddiness of it)
(Edit 2: Lmao, I ruffled the feathers of a lot of meat eaters who’ve likely never actually had to kill any if the animals they’ve eaten. I have, I still eat meat. Reality is messy, fucking own it)
Well hunting is a pain in the ass as it is. In an industrialized society we traded markets with shared goods to more specific specialties. Sure I can hunt for food because of licenses and availability but the trade off is most of the people have really good health care. At least objectively they have access to healthcare that can cure things that back in the 1500s would kill you within days.
My point is that at some point someone said “Hey I can take care of the meat portion if you take care of (insert many specialists careers).” There was no morality involved. Choosing to be vegan is fine. I think that it’s easier to get certain things from animal sources. So does nature.
One pretty consistent moral among societies is that needlessly causing harm is considered wrong.
The problem with this as your moral compass is that “needless” can mean whatever you want it to mean. It’s not actually a guideline to any specific behavior
Thats a semantics arguement to a generalized statement which is special kind of stupid. I gave a detailed response to further explain why this applies to meat eating and even ended with saying we havent reached a point in society where its fair to judge others for not abandoning eating meat. Just because society has always done things a certain way, doesnt make it right or moral, slavery was the NORM until around the last couple 100 years, and now its near universally considered atrocious. Meat eating from once living animals will likely be the next once norm, now evil, societal concept. But we arent there yet
I gave a detailed response to further explain why this applies to meat eating
Meat eating from once living animals will likely be the next once norm, now evil
The subjectivity of these takes is my entire point.
Damn near everything is subjective dumbass, its why theres so many societal problems that are still around even though they’ve plagued us for centuries
The entire purpose of a moral compass is to not be subjective. I didn’t make the claim that everyone should, or does, live by one set guideline. You did
Isn’t all morality subjective, rendering your comment moot?
Generally accepted morals certainly can be guidelines for behaviors.
One pretty consistent moral among societies is that needlessly causing harm is considered wrong.
besides your total lack of specificity about ethical systems or societies in which they exist, your use of “needlessly” is doing a lot of work there. on the one hand it sets up a no-true-scotsman where you can always claim no need is great enough, but it also gives anyone challenging this claim a loophole the size of a walmart to walk through: just claim it’s necessary.
i don’t think you really understand the claim you made. worse, if you do, that means you’re intentionally using vague language and intellectually dishonest tactics to persuade. this is called sophistry.
Im kinda done arguing with dumbasses in good faith about whether or not killing an animal is less ethical than not killing one. I’m a meat eater, I find meat delicious, and I ALSO recognise that most of the world isnt in a privileged enough position to NOT eat meat in order to fulfill their dietary needs. None of this takes away from the fact that killing is less ethical than not killiing
Im kinda done arguing with dumbasses in good faith about whether or not killing an animal is less ethical than not killing one.
Abso-fucking-lutely based. Sometimes it’s better to just call a dumbass, ‘a dumbass’ than engage with their bullshit sealioning.
bullshit sealioning
stealing this
Im kinda done arguing with dumbasses in good faith about whether or not killing an animal is less ethical than not killing one.
calling your interlocutors names is a great way to indicate you’re done arguing in good faith, but you just came out and said it. too bad you don’t seem capable of defending the claim you’re making.
Nah, it just means you idiots arent worth the headache
more name-calling, but no defense for your position.
So, quit eating. You must harm the plant to eat as well.
Plants dont experience life the same way we do dumbass. Do you think its ok to torture a pet cat as fun? Probably not, if so, you already recognize that harming an animal is less ethical than harming one. Really not that hard a concept to grasp. Eat meat, meats fucking delicious, but dont fucking delude yourself into thinking NOT killing an animal isnt less ethical than killing one.
Do you think its ok to torture a pet cat as fun? Probably not, if so, you already recognize that harming an animal is less ethical than harming one
wrong. torture can be wrong while incidental harm may be totally amoral. one has nothing to do with the other.
Counterpoint, something can be less moral than another thing WITHOUT being immoral. There are many MANY reasons to continue eating meat in this day and age, being just as moral as not, is NOT one of them
There are many MANY reasons to continue eating meat in this day and age, being just as moral as not, is NOT one of them
most ethical systems, in fact, do support that position: meat eating in and of itself is amoral to nearly every ethical system i can think of (and i know a lot)
i have a tendency to write very short comments, but i feel i’ve been misunderstood. let me try again:
you set up an claim that, if i’m reading it correctly, says “people believe torturing cats is wrong because they think harming an animal is less ethical than not harming an animal”
but that doesn’t necessarily follow. people may believe torturing cats is wrong, and that belief may have nothing to do with the other (that harming an animal is less ethical than not harming an animal). in fact, they can hold that belief without out believing the other at all.
Plants dont experience life the same way we do dumbass.
Source? Dumbass
problem is that only some well of westerners can reliably eat vegan and cover their nutrient intake, if you are worried about animal cruelty look into sustainable and ethical meet production
Edit: well off western vegans be mad
Spoken like someone who’s never had dirt-cheap lentils or beans & rice in their life that feeds literally billions. But we can delve into precisely what nutrients you’re referring to, versus the average nutrients (or excess of anti-nutrients) the average poor omnivore American gets in their diet. This doesn’t even cover the fact that if you’re poor, then you also are going to struggle to afford sustainable, healthy, and ethical “meet” production just the same.
sounds like someone who doesn’t understand that lentils rice and beans does not cover all the nutrients you would need, and thus you would be nutrient deficient. a massive problem for the people stuck eating lentils beans and rice (because hint: it is a massive problem), as for the ability to afford said meat, you don’t need a daily portion of meat.
It’s funny how you dodged the substance: Exactly which nutrients are you referring to?
When we finally get there, it’s going to boggle your mind that Beans & Rice and Lentils have a more diverse nutrient profile, while simultaneously having a greater calorie-density yield per square-mile of farmland.
That’s not even to raise soybean in combination with rice, which has gone on to feed massive populations of people for cheap in Asia for literally thousands of years…
… Forget the impact to climate change and general sustainability… Meanwhile feed for the animal has to come somewhere, and 60-80% of all meat is fed…Soybean. Perhaps, I dunno — cut out the middle-man… ?
Edit: The user below is incorrect. 60-80% of soybean production goes straight to the livestock feed. 34.3 million tons of soybean meal goes straight to feeding livestock. By contrast, only 11.9 million metric tons goes to soybean oil production; it’s thus likely the other way around and the extraction of oil is a byproduct of soybean meal production for livestock.
To drive home the point more clearly:
The demand for soybeans is currently tied to global meat consumption and is expected to grow, fuelled by Asia.
Expressed this way, it is clear that soybean meal actually contributes the bulk of the crushing value of soybeans on a per bushel basis.
Edit: The user feels as though they proved me wrong, but that graph only aids my case: 76% is used as animal feed. Soybean oil needs processed out and is sold in addition to the soybean meal, and the aforementioned links continue to prove that it is indeed the animal feed that is the most profitable part overall. Thank you. To repeat:
The demand for soybeans is currently tied to global meat consumption and is expected to grow, fuelled by Asia.
Per USDA:
Just over 70 percent of the soybeans grown in the United States are used for animal feed, with poultry being the number one livestock sector consuming soybeans, followed by hogs, dairy, beef and aquaculture
It continues to amuse me that one cannot find a single source supporting their case that animal feed supply would drop if soybean oil demand dropped. All evidence points to soybean oil being dependent upon animal feed demand in all actuality.
(Friendly reminder, again, that 2/3 of the Bushel value for the farmer comes from – you guessed it - the processed meal for animal feed. Waste products aren’t generally the driving value-maker).
Finally, the nail in the coffin:
"meeting animal [farmers’] needs drives meal demand,” and soy “meal is the engine that drives profitability,”
- United Soybean Board
Case closed.
the vast majority of the soy that is fed to livestock is the industrial waste from pressing it for oil. feeding it to animals is conserving resources.
I agree, I addressed this in my response
And some civilisations practised human sacrifice. “We did it in the past” isn’t really an arguement.
Congratulations, you’ve completely missed the point. Apples and oranges.
Our bodies grew and developed thanks to the nutrients meat provided. What does that have to do with human sacrifices?
Our ancestors hunted wild animals
Industrialized meat production is horrible and wrong
That’s the part that is wrong
Let a pig have a happy life, then kill it. There is no need to force feed it in a coffin size pen for its whole life.
It’s only wrong if you believe hurting other living things is wrong, it depends on your upbringing / mental framework and how you relate those between different species.
But I believe most people agree that the current way we mass produce meat and how we treat these animals is like a dystopian endgame. If humans were treated like that by a higher intelligence that would be extremely disturbing and cruel. We just accept it as we place the priority on a steak on our plate.
It is how it is, everyone is ignorant or a hypocrite in some parts of life. Good or bad are only subjective perspectives. But if you look at the harm we cause to other beings with eating meat and in what mechanistic way, that might be one of the things in 100 years we look back at and just can’t fathom.
That’s an incredible weak argument. Our ancestors did all kinds of stuff which lead to societies prosperity. Doesn’t make all of it morally right.
Circle of life. If I were in the wild and defenseless and animal wouldn’t hesitate to kill me, as it should be. It’s not wrong, it’s nature. Morality isn’t the same from person to person.
I agree with the people here calling out the cruelty of the industrialized meat industry, but eating meat in and of itself is not inherently wrong. The universe seems to consume itself by design—there is a reason Ouroboros (the serpent eating its own tail) is an ancient symbol for eternity. We are in an interlocked system that recycles matter and energy to sustain life.
Moderation in all things. Don’t take more than you need, but don’t deny yourself either. If I had my druthers, I would much rather be eaten by a cool animal after I die than sit in a box embalmed. Live a good life, and at least the animals you eat will be part of that positive contribution too.
its more moral to not eat meat.
under what ethical system?
Under literally any ethical system you choose.
Forget harm to the animal for a moment.
Breeding animals to slaughter is more water, land and time intensive than growing crops, and produces substantially fewer calories for even more land area. Breeding animals to slaughter also generates far more CO2 then crops, either from the animal directly or from transport and butchering processes.
Under literally any ethical system you choose.
deontological ethicists aren’t concerned with the consequences, only the action itself.
If it’s pure calories you’re after, might I suggest Uranium? It’s pretty cheap considering what you can theoretically get out of it.
^/s
I don’t think that you Uranium contains any calories.
A calorie is the amount of heat needed to raise the temperature one kg of water by 1°C, so uranium has quite a few, hard to digest though.
Edit: I was curious so I looked it up, 1 gram of uranium has 20 billion calories
Microdosing time!
I don’t think you understand what calories are.
Food calories and scientific measurement calories are different. It’s literally in the first paragraph of the article.
The small calorie or gram calorie was defined as the amount of heat needed to cause the same increase in one gram of water.
My comment specifically says “pure calories”.
What does
/smean? Does it mean back by science? Does it mean I should do this?? Please answer quickly, I have a piece of uranium here and I’m dying to eat itYes, science has confirmed that Uranium is perfectly edible and that it’ll provide you enough energy for the rest of your life.
Under literally any ethical system you choose.
i don’t know of any divine command theory that says anything like that
letting a cow graze a field and killing it next year takes way less time than tilling and planting and fertilizing and watering and harvesting.
Did you miss ‘/s’ or do you genuinely believe that?
Cause if it’s the latter, you should go to your school and ask for a refund.
I don’t think youve ever planted a field if you think I’m wrong
And I don’t think you’ve ever considered the amount of food and water required for just a kilo of meat.
Hint: It’s exponentially more than a kilo of veggies or grains.
you haven’t been reading what I’m writing.
buy a cow. put it in a pasture. come back in 18 months.
OR
buy seed. till. plant. water. feed. harvest.
the time investment per calorie is vastly different.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t most pastures also planted, fertilized, and watered? You’re also assuming infinite land here - I don’t know shit about farming, but the first google hit I got suggests that cows need about 1.8 acres of pasture per year.
1 cow, consuming 1.8 acres of land, produces on the scale of 0.5 to 1.4 million calories, according to this estimate
However farming produces up to 18 million calories per acre, so if you were growing potatoes you’d have 32 million calories. On the same land that produced up to 1.4 million calories via grazing cow.
if you ask a seed salesman whether you should buy his product for your pasture, he’ll try to sell it to you. but no, for the most part pasture management is very low intensity: repair fences and deter predators. these have direct analogues in raising crops though in warding off pests that would eat the crops.
You’re also assuming infinite land here
no, i’m not. i was comparing the work done to plant a field of potatoes against raising an equivalent amount of cattle. i’m making no sweeping policy proposals.
Great, in a vacuum, and assuming efficiency of land does not matter, you are correct in saying it takes less work to produce less calories.
not just in a vaccuum but literally any time you have the option to plant a field or put a cow in it, it will always be less work to put a cow in it.
However farming produces up to 18 million calories per acre, so if you were growing potatoes you’d have 32 million calories. On the same land that produced up to 1.4 million calories via grazing cow.
so? the work of lettin a cow eat what grows is still less work than planting, tending, and harvesting.
making food is a good use of land.
most of the crops fed to animals are parts of plants people can’t or won’t eat.
Not relevant. The field that is used to grow food stock for animals could have been used to grow food stock for humans. Potatoes have a high calorie count and are not particularly difficult to grow.
You’ll get far more calories out of the field of potatoes than a field of cows, unless you’re packing them in at the same density as the potato plants which I’m assuming you’re not.
You’ll get far more calories out of the field of potatoes than a field of cows,
if the land is unsuitable for crop production, you can often still raise cattle on it.
You still need to grow food to feed the cattle, if only for winter stock, so you have to find a fertile field to grow food stock, so that field could be used for growing crops and the field that’s unsuitable for anything else could just be, well not used. There’s absolutely no scenario where cattle are going to be more sustainable than crops.
you can feed cattle silage and crop seconds from food grown for people. you don’t need to plant crops just to feed cattle.
There’s absolutely no scenario where cattle are going to be more sustainable than crops.
wrong.
the field that’s unsuitable for anything else could just be, well not used
why, though? making food is a good use of land.
The field that is used to grow food stock for animals could have been used to grow food stock for humans.
often, it is. as i said, most of the crops fed to animals are parts of plants people can’t or won’t eat.
Much more land can be used for growing animals than for growing crops. And without animals there would be no dung so the only way to let crops grow would be chemical fertilizer (which is made of oil).
You’re talking about a different issue which is food shortages.
There is absolutely no shortage of arable land on earth, the problem is it isn’t evenly distributed but that’s an easy enough problem to solve if we actually wanted to solve it. The solution isn’t cattle.
It’s obviously not the solution because if it was the solution there wouldn’t be world hunger, you can’t feed millions of people on cow.
it’s not a sealion: it’s a clarifying question.
Removed by mod
I was hoping they’d commit to, yes, ANY ethical system when I asked this, but they didn’t seem to even know what options existed
I don’t know of any divine command theory systems that hold this axiom.
There’s no morality in food. What the actual fuck is wrong with the world?
Cannibal time let’s go
Hey, trap us on a mountainside with no escape in the freezing cold - guess what?
Point taken, I will avoid camping trips with you.
Well, you have full permission to eat my corpse if I die first. Because it’s pretty psychotic to demand that another person die to preserve a body you don’t need anymore.
I’ve never given this much thought before, however I’d argue that once you view other humans as food, your interactions change.
If you’re stuck in a mountain and your partner breaks a leg, if you view them as a food source you’re much less inclined to provide aid. “It sure would be a shame if you died”.
viewing humans as food is essentially a prisoners dilemma - society has an agreement to not do so (similarly to how folks don’t snitch in prisoners dilemma). This encourages more mutual aid between members of society for the reason I described above.
It just takes one party who thinks it’s acceptable to eat a person before coming across hardship for the final night’s of a stranded group to be spent eying each other in suspicion.
Removed by mod
It’s neither moral nor immoral to eat any of those things… “moral” is objectively not a word that holds any context whatsoever in a conversation about food…
If you would literally die before you would eat another human, you are psychologically broken. Your decision not to do that except as a last resort has nothing to do with morality whatsoever. It’s simply adherence to societal standards, rules, and personal standards.
If the neighbor’s pet is a pig or cow, it would literally be the first thing I ate if food truly became scarce enough to warrant that effort and upset. If it’s another animal, it simply follows the hierarchy of preference all humans have established for themselves. Zero morality involved.
Do you ever feel like modern society just wants to be outraged all of the time?
In the unlikely event humanity survives our many man made crises of this era, might this come to have been known as the Karen Age?
That’s because the threshold for writing “X causes outrage” in a headline is “one random nobody tweeted angrily about it”. For any given topic you can always find at least a single person who is angry about it. So this might just as well be known as the Shitty Clickbait Journalism Age.
Then again, people do love to go with the outrage train, even if it is something they don’t care that much about.
People love to be outraged about outrage
Outrage sells clicks and views better than anything except maybe disaster with a side of pretty young white girl.
They want to sell you outrage. So that’s what you see all the time.
Indeed. It’s less modern society and more three Twitter handles that are probably the same person retweeting themselves because you can find someone saying anything on Twitter to justify any made up faux outrage headline.
Meanwhile the ‘smart’ people eat it up. How many comments in this thread lol?
Do you ever feel like modern society just wants to be outraged all of the time?
How DARE you! (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
Relevant.
I think that’s part of it. I think it is also caused by the fact that everyone is outraged by different things. If you get a big enough audience someone is bound to be outraged about something even if everyone is being mostky reasonable.
My reaction to outrage:
“Meh.”
Stress helps keep the ADHD at bay.
Just someone outraged.
Most people probably moved on without any reactions.
Some stayed leaving comments for whatever reason.
The story we hear is written by the latter group, even if it is a tiny minority.
Why can’t I choose my lamb or cow while it’s still alive the way I choose my lobster at Red Lobster?
Because you’re gonna eat the whole lobster yourself. You’d have to get a quorum of the other customers who are going to eat it.
He’s a chef. Have the guarantee that he doesn’t eat all the food he chooses to cook.
Kolanaki?
The answer we know OPs question which is more general
You can if you go buy one from a farmer. In many rural places, you can then take it (or have it sent) to a butcher, and then pick up your coolers of fresh meat cuts to fill your deep freezer at home. I know people who do this, say once or twice a year. Better quality meat, often the animal had a better life on a local small farm, and per pound, far better price over the course of the year.
You absolutely can it’s just logistically awkward. Just think about it, how often do you eat lobster versus how often you eat steak?
But I’m fairly sure that if you turned up at a farm you can actually do this, at least once or twice. Although long term I’m not sure it would be in the farmers interest because it’s probably more hassle than it’s worth.
There’s also hanging time if they mean literally at the restaurant.
Farms do this all the time, but they just take an order for a whole or half a steer and deliver it to the butchers. Who picks it up depends on circumstances. I don’t know if people do half on smaller live stock.
Ironic, maybe stopping eating meat if you think it’s horrible to view animals as walking meals?
One can eat meat without celebrating that an animal had to die to get it. The celebration just makes you look like a serial killer…
look you’re still murdering animals either way, ramsay just isn’t pretending meat comes from plastic packages
Truth is better than ignorance
There is a difference between acknowledging death, and celebrating it.
I would argue that looking at a live animal and saying it looks tasty is normal, especially compared with other omnivores and carnivores. Looking at a processed hamburger and saying the same thing is much less natural IMO
Would you taste a living farm animal? When I used to eat meat, even then hell no. All dirt, fur, hooves and shit. I’m vegan and even I understand why butchers exist
If you want to limit this to what’s “natural”, you had better be eating all your meat raw. Saying a live animal looks tasty makes it sound like you want to eat it alive.
Are you an animal? Yes. Do lions fucking mourn their kill?no that’d make them insane. It’s crazy to feel bad about being a natural predator lol!
Do lions make videos saying “Yummy, yummy” about their prey? No, so it’s kind of a bad metaphor.
There’s nothing wrong with respecting the animals you eat, and we should always treat animals as well as we can, especially if we eat them. It could be argued that the video kinda undermines that message, so I kinda agree that it was a bad joke.
Lions dont have cameras, can’t make words, and don’t have the ability to reason.
You’re kind of unintentionally proving why eating animals is non big deal. They’re fundamentally lesser beings.
I didn’t say eating animals was bad. I said we should have respect for animals we eat, specifically because we have to kill it to eat it.
Well then I apologize because I misinterpreted and thank you for taking the time to clarify.
How is that at all ironic. People are protesting his savagery in his behavior prior to doing something most of us do and have always done since the beginning of time.
It’s obvious to the rest of us (obviously not you) that we’re upset not about his meal eating, but because of his taunting and his apathy.
Just you out here pushing self-confirming narratives
I looked and this isn’t satire. Somehow.
Any meat eater who is offended by his statements needs to find a big ol mirror and stare in it until they ratify that feeling with their diet.
That headline is probably based on a single tweet by some nobody, and they’re probably vegan.
…and they’re probably vegan.
I’m not so sure about that. I think lots of vegans would appreciate lampshading the brutality of slaughtering cute little baby sheep.
My bet would be on an omnivore that thinks of themselves as an animal lover getting upset by being made to feel cognitive dissonance.
lampshading
You missed an opportunity there for ‘lambshading’
What I’m an omnivores animal lover. I love them best in my belly
Jesus Christ people are sensitive
“Oh yeah? Well, I was nailed to a cross.”
- Jesus Christ
At least he’s honest.
As a vegetarian in this comment section
yummy yummy another grass eater
I never really understand why people find it so entertaining to make fun of vegetarians and vegans.
Their choice results in less suffering, plain and simple. Maybe you aren’t willing to change your diet, that’s your decision. But if others are willing to put effort into changing their diets and become vegetarian because it’s in line with their values, that’s admirable and should be applauded.
Please don’t make fun of people who put time and energy into pursuing their values. Not if you don’t see yourself as a bully.
I can go into detail on this, actually. It centers around personal insecurity, and a lack of empathy. Let me explain:
Keep in mind I used to eat meat. I’ve been a vegetarian for well over 10 years now.
So often they joke or sometimes project with, “how do you know someone’s a vegetarian/vegan? They’ll tell you.”
Now I get this can just be a joke, but oftentimes it comes off more passive-aggressive, reeking of insecurity. So entertain some possible reasons why vegetarians / vegans “tell you”:
Whose experience has been that bad with vegetarians/vegans, truly? Apart from what’s perpetuated and inflated in media and pop-culture. I’m literally surrounded by 97% of meat-eaters. How do I know they’re meat-eaters? I can guess because… 97% are meat-eaters. And that’s fine. But my sample of meat-eaters mocking what I choose to eat is far larger than the reverse. 3% means you aren’t bumping into too many of us. Speaking for myself, most of the moral arguments are fanned by those wondering why I chose to be one and cornered me into revealing I am a vegetarian (usually because the office or my group of friends is getting lunch or something, or I’m offered something I cannot have). Every single time I kindly explain my reasons and make an effort to note, “I don’t care what anyone else does, I just want to do my thing and lead by my own example.” Yet understand: it was THEY who asked ME. Food and eating with people is just an event that happens frequently. As a result it’s bound to happen that someone orders you something you can’t eat or attempts to and you explain to them why you cannot. They ask what you brought for lunch and the moment tofu crosses your mouth, cue the questions. Apparently they resent this and store this as ammunition later, and then remember it being you getting on a soapbox telling them what an awful person they are. (That’s probably their inner-conscience talking).
So — duh — it’s because you asked.
I assure you, speaking as a former meat-eater who was a meat-eater longer than a vegetarian, we receive A LOT more shit than we dish out. Most of us just want to do our thing and not even tell you. I don’t particularly like the attention when it’s pointed out — as is the case with most of my peers. I don’t mind questions, I just want mutual respect for my choices. Thus considering the sheer ratio of encounters between omnivores/carnivores vs. Plant-based diets, combined with the fact that most vegetarians/vegans have at one point been on the other side while the reverse isn’t true, I’d say people me know better the perspectives of both positions.
The problem is that diet becomes deeply personal and political for people. When they see someone else do something they don’t feel they can do themselves, then they either (a) try to elevate themselves above that person (case-in-point with @straypet below), or (b) try to bring the other person down. This has everything to do with ego and self-esteem.
It’s only admirable to be vegan if I agree with veganism, and I don’t. It’s no more admirable to be vegan than it is to be a scientologist.
The self-righteousness blasted everywhere is why you get made fun of.
Read this other comment and understand why people mention they are vegetarian or vegan: https://lemmy.world/comment/4652396
It’s only admirable to be vegan if I agree with veganism, and I don’t.
Veganism is mostly a diet… not a religion. What does it even mean to say that you disagree with it? If some people feel like they should be vegan and they put effort into it and are willing to give things up, why shouldn’t this be admirable?
Their choice results in less suffering
no, it doesn’t.
Removed by mod
Poor grammar and an incapacity to have basic commenting ettquiette.
your bourgeois standards of literacy don’t change whether i’m right.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
i’m just gob-smacked that you think trying to paint me as unstable somehow changes whether everything i’ve said is true.
theres no causal mechanic that would result in less suffering. think of it this way: if i take a cup of water out of a bucket , then the bucket has less water. what is the mechanic by which less suffering exists?
edit:
after failing to meaningfully undermine my claim, this user decided to imply i have a mental illness, and lied about the nature of what i said and then tried to poison the well by editing their comment near the top of our subthread and has the gall to say i’m not participating in good faith. this accusation is, itself, bad faith. i encourage you to read what was said here, and decide for yourself whether being vegan reduces suffering.
double edit:
i’m no tankie. baby, i’m an anarchist.
Can you provide another example please? I’m not sure I follow the bucket analogy.
If I choose not to eat meat it lessens the demand for it (however minutely). On a larger scale with many vegans refusing to eat meat less animals are bred into existence to be slaughtered.
What am I missing?
Not sure why he believes citing that graph is some great counterpoint. Less demand does factually translate to less supply and therefore less suffering. The problem is that populations still continue to grow and the number of vegetarians/vegans is neglible to overall growth.
Obviously if every vegan and vegetarian suddenly began eating meat again, then that graph would only increase in rate of change.
Change the minds of more people, and watch that change the rate of supply of course.
i didn’t like the bucket analogy when i wrote it. i don’t blame you.
i’m just looking for proof of causation between being vegan and suffering being reduced.
On a larger scale with many vegans refusing to eat meat less animals are bred into existence to be slaughtered.
that has never happened. if it had, if being vegan had caused production of meat to fall, then i think you could make a case. but it hasn’t so you can’t.
Inefficiency. Entropy. Laws of thermodynamics.
Think of it this way. In a game of telephone, signal quality degrades. Remove the middle-men, you improve the signal-to-noise. In a similar manner, there is little point in raising livestock on land, only to greatly pollute said land, only to produce a substance in less quantity and quality than what you could’ve done in its absence. Less demand means less livestock raised or tortured.
In another way, if you are saying that whether these animals roam free and die by the nature versus being grown in confined cages to be harvested… Then I wager whether if aliens descended upon this planet and you could either live as you do or you and your offspring be raised like cattle in a dark cramped alien farm, hauled around by convey-belts for the slaughter — tell me, which would you prefer?
Edit: This peculiar user who lacks the capacity to respond with a single coherent comment in the thread (Schizophrenia? I don’t know…) espouses various logical fallacies and deflections. I am utterly unimpressed by their incoherent rebuttals and have no interest in discussing with bad-faith laziness. My points remain largely untouched.
how much has suffering been reduced?
In another way, if you are saying that whether these animals roam free and die by the nature versus being grown in confined cages to be harvested… Then I wager whether if aliens descended upon this planet and you could either live as you do or you and your offspring be raised like cattle in a dark cramped alien farm, hauled around by convey-belts for the slaughter — tell me, which would you prefer?
this is a nonsequitur. it has nothing to do with whether being vegan reduces sufffering, which it doesn’t.
Inefficiency. Entropy. Laws of thermodynamics.
these are not magic words which take the place of a properly constructed argument.
Less demand means less livestock raised
that’s not causal
Chill dude, I am a vegetarian myself. No time and energy is needed to be vegetarian.
for some people, it might.
What doesn’t outrage tiktok? Wait until they find out people who fish are generally super excited about hooking a fish.
That’s the thing tho, you’re not allowed to be excited and have fun.
You need to stop.
Sometimes I think the simple notion of some person, somewhere, even existing is cause of aggravation for someone.
deleted by creator
I’ve shot and killed my own cow, I skinned it, cut it, and roasted it over a massive fire pit. The locals were loving every second of it happening, and I can totally agree with Ramsay.
Just remember to use Mint Sauce/Jelly on the lamb, its like opening a portal to flavourtown.
Chicken with a knife. Oh so so good. If you are going to eat meat you should be willing to do it yourself at least once in your life.
That sounds dangerous to eat
I love lamb. I love organ meats and I wish we had a larger variety of animals available where I live. I miss italy… I love handling meat and making it into something delicious. I would watch the lamb behind my house and be excited knowing Christmas and Easter was coming just so we got to eat roast lamb.
To be fair, these are very young animals. Lamb is just a name they use for “baby sheep” to make it more palatable. It’s the same with “veal”.
I eat lots of animals, but I don’t like eating the baby ones. Haven’t had one in at least a decade, and I really don’t think I’m missing out on anything.
The reason for the name isn’t to make it more palatable, at least originally. The name for the animal comes from the peasants, speaking old English, and the name for the food came from the nobility speaking French, who didn’t have to deal with the animals. We call adult sheep meat mutton, for example, not to make it palatable, but because of the history of the language. Same for deer/venison, pig/pork, cow/beef, etc.
Edit: actually I don’t know if this is true for lamb, but for veal and the rest it’s true.
In my language, which is very distant from the english/frank dicotomy, we never had that distinction between peasant and nobility food and still we get a lot of words to distinguish between meats.
Mutton is either carneiro/ovelha (ram/sheep) or just chanfana (this word is used to denote the meat comes from a fully matured animal, over a minimum of two years old, usually around four or five).
Lamb can either be borrego (most commonly used word) or anho (a less used word, alledgely tied to the time we were under moorish occupation).
The words are imperative and not there to make things more palatable; these can’t be thrown around to designate the meat solely, as the meat designates the animal and vice versa.
To be fair, they taste delicious.
Lol yeah they could have gone to college or cured cancer.
The lambs typically live longer than chickens.
Thats about animal lifespan, and has nothing to do with the conversation.
They also live better than chickens though.
The person I was replying to was referring to not wanting to eat baby sheep because they’re young, I was pointing out that another meat they probably eat has an even shorter lifespan. Point being, if you’re against eating baby sheep because they’re young, you should also probably be against eating chicken, because they’re younger and have an even worse life.
Thats completely and entirely dependant on the farm, not their being chickens.
Again, “younger” is relative to the lifespan of an animal. We dont eat chicks.
And the quality of life for a chicken is not based on its age or net time spent living, but by the type of farm who owns them.
You dont have a point or statement here.
Again, “younger” is relative to the lifespan of an animal. We dont eat chicks.
No. We just breed them such that they grow so much muscle mass the chicken couldn’t live much longer than its harvested lifespan. It will be unable to stand up, and rot to death on the spot. Other breeds of chickens have much longer lives, 5-10 years, but meat chickens only live 6-7 weeks.
I do have a point, you just can’t accept that you’re a little bit more ignorant in these matters than I am.
Which, again, is breed and farm owner specific, and has exactly zero to do with age of the animal on both a species specific tims span and net time alive.
Do you think I, a farm worker, do not understand the nuance of farm animals? Or are you just too pig headed to admit you were wrong and are now trying to pretend that any and every issue with farm animals is secretly about the amount of time they are alive before we eat them?
Very palatable
Lmao. Okay. This outrage thing is just getting out of control. Don’t these people have anything useful to worry about?
No. These people live off their wealthy parents and bored to death, because they’re useless shits with only hobby of theirs is being offended online by everything.
No that’s the whole point of outrage culture, to keep you outraged about things that don’t matter so you take it up the ass on the things that do since no one complains about those
You fucking donkey
Is this a thing he says? Only place I’ve heard that remark was in The Menu.
https://youtu.be/5N9p-OrBtsE?si=rHVFwBnzhH29aXgi
It’s a famous thing he says, it’s also a big meme.
