this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2023
208 points (89.1% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35701 readers
1138 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I heard something to do with Nitrogen and …cow farts(?) I am really unsure of this and would like to learn more.

Answer -

4 Parts

  • Ethical reason for consuming animals
  • Methane produced by cows are a harmful greenhouse gas which is contributing to our current climate crisis
  • Health Reasons - there is convincing evidence that processed meats cause cancer
  • it takes a lot more calories of plant food to produce the calories we would consume from the meat.

Details about the answers are in the comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

This is kind of a straw man argument. I don't feel guilty at all eating a carrot I pulled out of the ground.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

So we can all agree that it’s morally ok to eat a carrot, but not to eat a human. The difference is sentience. The hard part is where exactly to draw the line. Which side of the line is a cow on? A fish? A bug?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah, I see he’s thought it through and generated numbers, but it’s counter-intuitive to say we should give up fish for beef, or that milk causes more suffering than beef

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I'm not a meat eater personally.
But I don't understand why people who like to eat meat don't eat human.
I think there are, or have been, some who do. It's seems cultural, and a bit of a luxury to be wasteful.

I don't think there's any socially agreed line between "good" and "bad".

I reckon people mostly do what their culture prefers or tolerates.
Different cultures have different ranges of acceptable behavior from different people fulfilling different roles within them . Most people are members of many sub-cultures going right down to small family groups , professional associations, work-teams, sports teams and so on. There'll be some sort of consequence for transgression, maybe verbal shaming, spitting in someone's beer, withheld services, exclusion from jobs, or expulsion from the group.

Sometimes people (in power) agree to put in laws and expend resources on enforcement instead of cultural norms; probably because the clashes within or between (sub)cultures and the inconsistent treatment of transgressions becomes too costly or disruptive.
That's when you get a "line" that says "wrong", once its been put into an enforced law. Even then the law, and enforcement, is always still a bit blurry. partial, and biassed so it's really just a formalisation of the process for administering the consequences of transgression.

i think it is possible to find things that look similar in other social animals too like, other apes, wild dogs, things with pecking orders , rats and so on. I wonder if there are even roles similar to " police" in some non-human cultures?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We could certainly discuss that, but it appears to, regardless of whether there is a good reason.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I disagree that it matters in any obvious sense.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't believe this is a straw man argument, I never claim that they believe these conclusions. Quite the opposite, I am showing how their argument, not their conclusion, is not good. As I understand their argument, it is basically this:

(i) If something does not want to be killed, it is morally wrong to kill it. (ii) Animals do not want to be killed. Thus, it is morally wrong to kill animals.

I do not agree with (i), which I try to explain by reductio ad absurdum, arguing that if (i) is true it leads to obviously incorrect conclusions, thus (i) must be false.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The straw man argument comes from your point about combining plants and animals as food, and stating that they were both living. If you compare a cow to parsley, it is silly to say that we shouldn't eat parsley for the sake of it being a living organism. With cows in the same argument, they get dismissed since they're in the same group as plants.

Plants are the straw man in this case because it's easy to dismiss the argument that we shouldn't eat plants, for some reason. Animals are conscious creatures that experience suffering. Plants don't experience the same pain.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A straw man argument is when the other person believes A and you act like they in fact believe B, so you argue against B.

I am not claiming they believe it immoral to kill plants. Quite the opposite, I don't think anyone believes this in general. Therefore, it is not a straw man.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Not quite. From https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Strawman-Fallacy:

  • Person 1 makes claim Y.
  • Person 2 restates person 1’s claim (in a distorted way).
  • Person 2 attacks the distorted version of the claim.
  • Therefore, claim Y is false.

With this in mind:

  • Someone spoke about the ethics of food.
  • You claimed that plants are food like meat (both living), and it is unethical to eat them: "[...] all life has a right to not be killed or abused. Yet human life is impossible without killing and consuming other living organisms, be it plants, animals og fungi. Thus it is unethical to continue living."
  • It's silly to say that it's unethical to eat plants.
  • Therefore, the claim about food ethics is silly.
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

You are misunderstanding my argument. I am not arguing against their conclusion, "it is morally wrong to kill animals", I am arguing against the validity of their argument, "If something does not want to be killed, it is morally wrong to kill it". Therefore, I am not restating their claim, I am saying that their argument leads to this absurd conclusion, thus it must be wrong. I have already explained this in a previous comment. You appear to be ignoring what I am writing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I don't feel guilty at all eating animals. Kind of a subjective point, no?

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And others don't feel guilty for eating meat. Than you for recognizing that people have different feelings.

[–] Kerfuffle 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And others don’t feel guilty for eating meat.

Carrots are incapable of feeling anything: they can't be affected in a morally relevant way. Animals have emotions, preferences, can experience suffering and can be deprived of positive/pleasurable experiences in their lives.

Than you for recognizing that people have different feelings.

Obviously this isn't a sufficient justification for harming others. "I don't care about people with dark skin, please recognize that different people have different feelings." The fact that I don't care about the individuals I'm victimizing doesn't mean victimizing them is okay.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Isn't it funny how everyone becomes a subjectivist when trying to defend meat eating?