• Maple Engineer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    The first time we harvested one of our pigs we had a wake for him. We ate all kinds of delicious cuts and raised a toasted to him.

    To Biggun. He was a nice pig and he is a tasty pig.

    TO BIGGUN!

    <om no nom>

      • AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        If you like: pretending that killing an animal is morally equivalent to killing a human

        You should try: growing a brain

        • Strawberry@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          When did I say that? My statement points out that rituals to make yourself feel better about killing an animal do not change that animal’s experience of being killed or the moral weight of that action

          • AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            You said they were morally equivalent when you called it murder, and you said it again just now. Why does killing an animal for food carry any moral weight? Cheetahs don’t get any flak for hunting caribou.

            • Strawberry@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              You said they were morally equivalent when you called it murder

              I didn’t, actually

              and you said it again just now

              I didn’t, actually

              Why does killing an animal for food carry any moral weight?

              Because humans aren’t special unique beings with souls that make us the only ones with moral worth. Many animals are capable of suffering and emotion.

              Cheetahs don’t get any flak for hunting caribou.

              We are the ones with the social system allowing for moral frameworks to guide our decisionmaking. Cheetahs aren’t moral agents. And if they are, they follow cheetah morality. Plus, they are obligate carnivores anyway (which is why your cat should not be deprived of meat)

              • AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                You said they were morally equivalent when you called it murder

                I didn’t, actually

                Yes you did, that’s what the word “murder” means

                your cat shouldn’t be deprived of meat

                All right then. Do you believe that owning a cat is immoral, since in order for the cat to thrive, creatures with souls must die?

                • Strawberry@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  There are no creatures with souls. But no, I wouldn’t say keeping a cat in general is immoral. There are definitely ethical concerns around things like kitten breeding mills and letting cats roam around outdoors, though

            • Dyskolos@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              A human is an animal too, so i might kill it for food with no moral weight to it. Great.

              But if you compare yourself to a cheetah, I get that your intellect and morals are just… Primal 😁

                • Dyskolos@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  I actually didn’t say anything and just followed this dude’s logic. But actually I’d say it’s not equivalent. The non-human animals are always innocent. Man is rarely.

                  • AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    5 months ago

                    Oh, I disagree. Ant colonies go to war with each other all the time. Basically all mammal species see every male in a 5-mile radius fight to the death over a single female. I’m curious what exactly it is the animals are supposed to be innocent of.

          • Maple Engineer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            It’s in the definition. Murder is the killing of one human being by another. Vegan fanatics try to shame everyone else by calling it murder but it just makes me laugh. They try so very hard but just sound silly.

            • Strawberry@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              pedantry is an incredible argumentative strategy. Truly unstoppable. Why think critically when you can read a dictionary instead?

              • Maple Engineer@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

                Dismissing the truth as pedantry doesn’t change the fact that it’s the truth. Your beliefs don’t change reality.

                • Strawberry@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Using linguistic prescriptivism to shut down an argument and calling it “the truth” and “reality” to avoid thinking about what somebody means when they say a word is… certainly something

                  • Maple Engineer@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    Fanatics try to expand the meanings of words to make their message more inflammatory in an attempt to bully and shame people who don’t agree with them into doing what they want. It’s a standard play from the extremist playbook.