this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2026
486 points (94.2% liked)
Funny
14459 readers
1289 users here now
General rules:
- Be kind.
- All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
- Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
- No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
- Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.
Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sounds like you're cooking it wrong. It feels disrespectful, but a lot of the people criticizing this probably rub their hands together and say, "yummy!" when they pull a burger out of a bag without thinking of the calf/cow it once was.
I've never cooked lamb, I only ate it as a kid. And the last time I spent My money on dead chordate, I was recovering from invasive surgery.
Gotcha. I was vegetarian for many years, so I get it. Cooking chicken actually smelled like heated roadkill to me, I had to leave the room.
I felt healthier without eating meat, actually. Now that I am back to eating meat, I respect where it comes from and intend to use every part of my harvests (having a dog helps too). I believe I owe it to the animal to acknowledge where what is on my plate comes from and to be as humane as possible.
yeah, it's cool how our brain can rationalize an evil act, like paying for innocent beings to be slaughtered for our pleasure, by "respecting their sacrifice", and occasionally hunting something "humanely" and then pretending like we only ever eat meat that came from an animal that never suffered for our meals
I bet when Jeff Bezos hunts people for sport on his private island, he takes a minute to respect their sacrifice. And if the first shot doesn't kill them, he makes sure to shoot them in the head so they don't suffer.
nonhuman animals aren't people
That's our choice, personhood is a social construct. Don't be a realist, take personal responsibility for your worldview. Choose whether animals are people.
when nonhuman animals assert their personhood, that will change things.
They've been asserting their personhood for a long time. Check out !transspecies@lemmy.blahaj.zone. I'm not an animal, but I'm not a human either, and I have had close relationships with many therians. But even if therians didn't exist, you should still choose to be kind. This slaver mentality of expecting marginalised groups to stand up for themselves by your standards is a catch-22. You're in control of your own standards. You can't make everyone else responsible for your own choices.
comparing slaves to animals is what slavers do
It's also what Isaac Bashevis Singer, Jewish Holocaust survivor did.
A Holocaust survivor is calling people like you Nazis. Stop and think. Take responsibility. Stop reacting, stop defending, and use your head to tell right from wrong.
the Holocaust was bad, in part, because it treated people like animals. his opinion isn't well reasoned moral philosophy.
I'm really glad I made a PieFed instance, because it means I get to ban people like you who obstinately push realist authoritarian points that were rebutted several messages ago, like you're on some kind of script for exhausting the enemy. MULTIVERSE's rule about limited authoritarianism is something I'm really proud of in how it specifically bans these kinds of tactics which are optimised to exhaust and/or intimidate the left wing opposition.
I mean I know you by reputation, I've seen you do this kind of thing before. But I still gave you the benefit of the doubt today, and it's making this tankie ban feel just so much more satisfying.
nothing was debunked
explaining that people deserve more respect than nonpersons isn't right wing, just as it's antithesis isn't left wing.
I'm right, and I'm not a tankie, but I hope you enjoy your echo chamber
Treating people like animals is only bad because you're arbitrarily presupposing that animals are worthy of lesser treatment. You do understand that, right?
And like, what's your well-reasoned moral philosophical justification as to why it's okay to kill sentient beings that don't want to be killed, and why does it distinguish between humans and other animals???
there isn't proof nonhuman animals understand personal mortality.
What a solipsistic take. By the same token, there's no way that you can prove to me that you understand personal mortality. If, for the sake of argument, I were to point a loaded firearm at you and you were to attack me, attempt to flee, beg for your life, whatever, there's no way you could prove to me that your actions are motivated by a subjective will to not die: for all I know you might just be acting very convincingly like someone who understands mortality without actually having any interiority whatsoever.
However, there is social utility in assuming that others are capable of understanding abstract concepts when they perform actions in accordance with such an understanding. And from the fact that most animals will try to avoid things that they can reasonably understand will cause them death (natural predators, environmental hazards, anything that has caused them injury), we can likewise extrapolate that they don't want to die.
it's not solipsism. it animal cognitive behavioral study.
> Puts a bullet in you
> bystanders freaking out
> not to worry, I have the perfect justification prepared
> "Oh nonono it's ok, they just don't have any sort of consciousness. it's not solipsism. it commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com behavioural study."
> nailedit.jpg
i never suggested they don't have consciousness, though i rather doubt that some animals, like muscles, do. i said they don't understand personal mortality. if you can find me an animal cognitive behaviorist who disagrees, i'd love to read their work.
Fine, we'll put aside the accusation of solipsism for a moment and come back to this:
You'ven't made any meaningful rebuttal of anything I've said here. This is why it's easy to assume you're arguing in bad faith: I'll clearly state my position and explain my reasoning, and then you'll just come along and hit me with the "nuh-uh," and refuse to elaborate. At my insistence that you justify your own position, you've so far given me "but different things are different," and "but it's normal tho."
In the case of the former, I have explained why in the context of this discussion the different things are actually quite similar in the way that actually matters here. And given that you appear to hold sincerely leftist beliefs on every topic except animal liberation, I really hope I don't have to explain to you how "but it's normal tho," has been used to defend countless atrocities, historical and present, and as such I shan't accept it as a justification.
you still haven't provided any cognitive behavioral science to support the claim that nonhuman understand that they themselves might die, which is an essential step in establishing that they want to live out that they didn't want to die
disengage
treating different things differently is necessary for right action. you wouldn't treat a whale like a lion or vice versa.
I didn't say anything about worthiness or lesser treatment.
In the sense that they both have a drive for self-preservation that I believe ought to be respected where no immediate threat to wellbeing exists, yes actually, I would treat a whale like a lion and simply not murder either of them for food. In fact, in my everyday life, I do treat them exactly the same because I have exactly zero interactions with either.
do you treat your phone like you treat your neighbors phone, and like you treat your laptop, and like you treat your car?
It's almost as though you're completely disregarding the context and the scope of my previous response because you're arguing in bad faith.
Yes, I can accept that different things are different and this will sometimes mean that it's okay to accordingly act differently, but sometimes different things have similarities and you're here arguing for discriminatory treatment in the context where they're actually not that different. Whales, lions, sheep and humans alike have a drive for self-preservation. Thus, they should similarly be allowed to live without being killed in cold blood by those who are capable of knowing better than to inflict needless suffering.
I have stated my reasoning again and again. It is on you to provide a justification for the discrepancy you're here supporting.
there is no reason to suppose eating animals is bad. since it is so normal, both among humans and in the natural world, the burden is on those who propose that we don't do that.
Sure there is: it causes suffering that can easily be avoided by not doing that.
ease is a relative term
Nature made us this way. Life exist by eating other life, that's how it is. Blame god/universe for it.