As a meat eater the argument that we shouldn't eat "intelligent" animals is bull. The livestock we eat all display a higher/equal level of intelligence as your pets. Ultimately we don't eat certain animals because we like them and that's it.

Personally if you're going to eat meat you can't pick and choose which animal is ok to eat and which one isn't. It's either they all are or none of them are

[–] michaelrose@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is fairly bad logic it presumes we must either do no evil whatsoever or do however much evil we like because we refuse to do no evil. You could trivially extend it to eating people after all why are we picking which animal its OK to eat? Back in reality we should probable stop eating animals but a world where we do less harm is still better than one where we do more and most of us would race to stop the consumption of 3 children before we would endeavor to save 3 million chickens. The argument goes that the whales are closer to the children than the chickens. Even if you don't think this is fair or reasonable nobody is going to save the chickens and there is political and moral will to save the whales so perhaps be happy with the good that we can do instead of insisting on all or none.

[–] gazter@aussie.zone 4 points 1 year ago

I see your point- and you are right, a world where we do less harm is better. It's all grey areas though. Extending your example, if it was a choice between the death of 3 million chickens or 3 million whales, personally I would choose the chickens. 3 million cows or 3 million whales, however, has different implications. Even more interesting is smaller numbers- 300 cows or 300 whales? Considering how you get so much more resources for the same amount of harm in whales, I would probably choose whales.

[–] Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My point had nothing to do with harm but with logic. The idea that some animals are more worthy than others when it comes to consumption makes no sense. If your argument is about harm reduction then the only issue with killing Whales would be killing so many it has food chain ramifications. Other then that there is no harm. If your argument is about its wrong to eat sentient beings you can't kill any animal.

The only argument you can have against killing a chicken instead of a whale is we've always killed chickens which isn't an argument. As for saving a baby instead of chicken were biologically programed to care for a baby to keep the humanity going and eating one is harmful to our health

[–] michaelrose@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You actually feel like killing chickens and killing people have equal moral weight? Ya you aren't worth talking with any longer.

[–] Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If you actually read my comment you'd see I said we are biologically programmed not to kill or eat human babies. Which is why logically we have no reason to resort to cannibalism.

I argued theres no moral argument to claim its better to eat chickens instead of whales. If you weren't so focused on just arguing you'd see that

[–] michaelrose@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Whales appear to have a higher degree of understanding of the universe I and others feel it is more akin to eating humans than chickens. If you don't agree with that premise you probably wont agree with anything else.

[–] Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah the only thing stopping Whales from space travel and enlightenment is a lack of thumbs and the ability to sit

[–] gayhitler420@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago

Lol, cry about it, bloodmouth.

[–] Colour_me_triggered@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

I'd seriously eat human, if it weren't for the risk of prion diseases.