Cruel cultural traditions make (good) people support horrible acts. A tale as old as time.

Fortunately plant-based alternatives have been growing and improving quite fast for 10-20 years now, so I’m hopeful that even those who “could never give up meat” might stop supporting those hell holes. I was one of them, after all.

Kabecz have been charged with several offences, including killing or injuring animals; causing unnecessary suffering to an animal; failing to provide adequate medical attention for an animal when it is wounded or ill; inflicting upon an animal acute suffering, serious injury or harm, or extreme anxiety or distress that significantly impairs its health or well-being.

Just inflict the same things on “farm animals” and it’s not only socially acceptable, but the average person will gladly buy the products, and therefore fund the abuse on factory farms.

We certainly have a looong way to go to become a decent society based on that metric.

Seems like they haven’t gained traction since the reddit exodus. I wonder how the other alternatives are doing. Lemmy has a decent amount of activity at least, although I still wish more people would use it.

We gotta spread the word. It still seems very achievable if enough people become aware of it.

What makes you think that processing food through an animal is healthier than through a factory?

You have to compare the actual nutrients contained in the product to draw any conclusion about health effects, and the macros are fairly similar for the plant-based versions compared to a given meat product.

The average person (in developed countries) eats significantly more meat than the recommended upper limit by nutrition organizations.

If you just go by the naturalistic argument, you’d conclude that processed drinking water is worse than untreated water, and that vaccines are worse than “perfectly natural” diseases. It’s a common logical fallacy.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature

To me that’s more ethical than killing of billions of animals, and the latter is considered ethical.

I think most people would actually consider factory farming unethical, they just put the blame on the producers for treating animals like shit. And the producers are locked into a race to the bottom for competitive prices, so they’d blame the customers/market conditions.

It’s kind of funny, having the calves slaughtered to get the milk that is naturally meant for them is considered vegetarian (as long as you personally don’t eat the veal).

If they’re kept on abusive factory farms, that’s still vegetarian.

When the dairy cows gets their throats slit because milk production drops below profitablity after ~5 years, the milk is still seen as vegetarian (as long as someone else buys the meat).

No matter how much death and suffering takes place at the farm, the milk is seen as vegetarian. But at rennet, that’s where they draw the line.

Now, your claim is that Russia started the civil war as a pretext to invade and that the separatists are just Russian proxies. On the other hand, the Russian narrative would claim the same thing about the Euromaidan coup.

I guess most the 400.000 - 800.000 Euromaidan protestors were CIA agents in Russias view then?

It’s well known that many people in Eastern European countries don’t trust Russia one bit after their experiences in the USSR. Of course there’s enormous pushback when politicians in power try to strengthen ties with Putin (and cut ties to EU countries), it would be really weird if there weren’t. The same would happen in Poland and many other Eastern European countries who were staunchly anti Putin long before the invasion, even though they don’t have an immediate threat from a shared border with Russia.

In my opinion, if people really cared so much about the Ukrainian people, then we should’ve been providing them with foreign aid for domestic development, long before any of this started.

Before the war, people weren’t really aware of the situation in Ukraine and there were 100 other problems that seemed more urgent, so there just wasn’t any political pressure to do something.

As far as I can see, it’s just about US/Ukrainian state interests vs Russian state interests

Western countries just stood by in the first days and did nothing, as they had no hopes for Ukraine surviving for more than a few days. If the Ukrainian public weren’t willing to push back, they would’ve had no chance to stop the Russian advances and their government would’ve collapsed in days, just as both Russia and the West predicted.

It would be a better use of funds to accept territorial concessions

Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians fled from the occupied territories, and accepting that they will never get their relatives and homes back will be unthinkable for a large part of them, especially after the reports of forced relocations from occupied regions into Russia (including thousands of children) and all the suffering that Putin has brought upon Ukrainians. Maybe they will reach the point of making concessions if they see no hope of retaking the territory. Ultimately this has to be decided by the Ukrainian people.

You said that they are a reactionary government, but you also implied that their reactionary justification to invade is legitimate.

You said you “don’t fully agree” with Russia intervening in the civil war (by shelling kyiv I guess, because theres definitely civil war there). As if they didn’t provoke it in the first place to justify their invasion.

I also wouldn’t expect people who are criticial of war to say that they “don’t fully agree” with Russia waging a war of aggression and commiting mass murder and war crimes in Ukraine, I would expect some actual condemnation of such atrocities.

Yeah, I don’t fully agree with their decision to intervene in the Ukrainian civil war

Of course Russia had nothing to do with the war. They would never fund and support the separatists, or spread anti Ukrainian propaganda amongst the Russian speaking population, because Putin loves democracy and just wants the best for everyone, of course. /s

But the majority of us loves our animals

And when the milk production drops, the vast majority of dairy cows get their throat slit and their bodies sold for profit. I surely wouldn’t treat those that I love that way, but I guess animal farmers just have a very different concept of “loving animals” compared to people who have pets, for example.

The NSDAP had no issues working with Russia, as long as it was in their interest.

With our current lifestyles, 7 billion humans aren’t sustainable for earth, which results in a lot of habitat destruction, pollution, climate change and so on. That’s what my analogy to deer overpopulation was getting at. Even if we had a global 1 child limit, it would take a few generations until an actually sustainable population is reached.

If we have a right to live even though we cause so much destruction, it’s inconsistent to kill deer for causing way, way less damage than us.

You wouldn’t need to sterilize more deer for population control than with hunting, obviously. You’d need to sterilize less in total because they’d still compete for food and habitat, just have no offspring. How is that unfeasible? I never said that you’d have to sterilize every single one lol, just enough to impact the fertility of their population in regions where its necessary due to human influence.

If you have to choose between killing a crying child or killing an adult deer, which would you think is the more moral choice?

What does that have to do with anything? Of course killing a human is worse, but that doesn’t mean that killing a deer isn’t cruel.

Why don’t we spay entire wild populations of deer? :DD

Well, we do this with hundreds of millions of pets and BILLIONS of livestock animals just to improve taste, and hunters already go around shooting them, surely there would be a practical way to tranquilize them and do a snip or something. This is an issue we’re responsible for after all, as you said. But yeah, there’s no profit and no tasty corpses to be gained so it’s not an option, I get it.

Thanks for the laughs though, young city dweller

I’m not sure why you felt the need to be a condescending prick by the way. Maybe basic decency and manners aren’t valued in your culture, so I’ll try not to judge your character based on that. Have a nice day anyways.

When it is necessary. Humans have replaced the apex predators in a lot of places. If population control isn’t done with deer, the population skyrockets, gets out of control, and destroys the ecology, taking several species and the environment with it

But all that applies to humans, and much more so. The harm done by deer overpopulation is completely and utterly dwarfed by the habitat destruction, pollution and climate change that our overpopulation causes. Based on your argumentation, hunting humans for population control is necessary and ethical.

But of course nobody will apply the logic consistently because of how cruel it would be.

Why don’t we implement more humane population control measures for deer, like spaying/neutering? It might have something to do with humans liking the taste of their dead bodies…

(game meaf from necessary population control = ethical imo)

At what point do you consider population control necessary? The inconvenient truth is that the worst instance of unsustainable overpopulation is us humans. No other species could come close to the harm and destruction we cause. Making special exceptions for ourselves while we are the worst offenders by far would be very hypocritical. If you consider population control ethical, you ought to consider school shootings, murder, etc. ethical as well.

I think we need to find better solutions than going on killing sprees.

Those Russian speaking separatists got heavily influenced by Russian disinformation and propaganda for years in preparation of the invasion, and supported by the Russian armed forces, precisely to have this justification. This is like saying Putin got 88% in the election, so clearly that’s the will of the people. Assuming that authoritarian regimes lead by secret service agents play by the rules of democracy is dangerous.

Imo it’s remarkable how successful they are at spreading their twisted narratives, even in western countries.

I wouldn’t say they’re equivalent. Obviously beating a fly isn’t as bad as beating a dog or a pig. But is beating a human much worse than beating a dog? For me it comes down to capacity to suffer I guess.