[andersentobias]

> My fantasy solution is everyone needs to go get a meat consumption license by going to a farm and killing an animal with a knife in their hands every, say, 10 years.

I have heard this repeated from so many vegans / animal activists at this point, including my own sister. Where did you get it from? Who is the original author? I am seriously asking.

An argument involving only my individual health (I am into fitness stuff) plus effect on the environment - repeated enough times - would sway me.

To be completely honest: I do not appreciate being told that I am an immoral human being for X (X = eating meat).

Been told that too many times already during my lifetime. It is a cultural constant. That formula is just too tiresome to hear yet again at this point.

[haswell]

> I do not appreciate being told that I am an immoral human being for X (X = eating meat).

While I don’t think it’s useful to oversimplify this into a binary moral issue, I also think it’s necessary to be reminded about the realities of the choices we make.

Why do you not appreciate this sentiment? Inconvenient truths tend to not feel very good, but that doesn’t make them incorrect.

> Been told that too many times already during my lifetime. It is a cultural constant. That formula is just too tiresome to hear yet again at this point.

I mean this with all respect, but this really sounds like “well, the world hasn’t stopped abusing animals yet, so I really don’t have a choice but to participate, and it’s really tiresome when people point that out”.

Change starts from within. I’d argue that the reason these argument feel tiresome is because the current solutions are not easy ones. They require each of us to alter our habits and demand broader change.

This is legitimately hard. But neither is there some magic bullet that will solve this.

I fully appreciate that we’re all stuck in a system that we can’t do much individually to change. But the one thing we can change is ourselves, and this is an option that is always available.

I wouldn’t be so quick to call someone who eats meat immoral, and as a meat eater I’d be a hypocrite for doing so. I’ve also gone to lengths to acquire meat that is as ethical/humane as possible, and over time I’ve reduced consumption significantly.

There are historically plenty of culturally acceptable practices that are also deeply immoral upon further reflection. If you’re finding the arguments tiresome, that may be a good signal to listen more closely.

[concordDance]

> Why do you not appreciate this sentiment? Inconvenient truths tend to not feel very good, but that doesn’t make them incorrect.

Is this a genuine question?

We're social animals and calling someone immoral is going to be perceived as a social attack by non-neurodivergent people.

> I mean this with all respect, but this really sounds like “well, the world hasn’t stopped abusing animals yet, so I really don’t have a choice but to participate, and it’s really tiresome when people point that out”.

If you think this is just about animals you're missing most of the picture. In the modern day people are told they are immoral for many many reasons: driving cars, not turning off lights when they leave the room, not going to that BLM protest, not signing the anti-abortion petition, not going to church, using shampoo, not donating to ukraine/save the children/deworm the world, etc etc

It's an extremely common tactic used by every activist on every topic.

[dguest]

I agree. We should be able to acknowledge that we do harmful things without turning it into judgement on our overall character. It's not hypocrisy to admit that you do bad things sometimes.

[AnimalMuppet]

> Why do you not appreciate this sentiment? Inconvenient truths tend to not feel very good, but that doesn’t make them incorrect.

"You're immoral for X" is very often used by someone who wants to take a very grey issue and make it black and white, with their side obviously being the "right" one (and, just in case it's not clear, they label the other side as immoral). It's often a cheap rhetorical trick of someone who wants to win the argument by default, rather than having to go through the hard work of actually persuading people (which means having to deal with all the grey parts of the question). "I'm morally right, you're morally wrong, you should feel ashamed of your position, and therefore you should shut up" is almost never a good-faith argument.

That doesn't make them "inconvenient truths". That makes them rhetorical ammunition for someone who is interested in winning, not in truth or good-faith discussion.

Note well: This does not apply to all instances of the phrase "inconvenient truth". But it seems to me that it is used that way more often than it's used in good faith.

[stcroixx]

If one accepts they are an omnivore, and there is ample evidence to support this, then they do not feel it is immoral to kill animals for food. That would make one’s very existence immoral. You may disagree, but that doesn’t mean you’re right or that your point of view is the truth, convenient or otherwise and few people appreciate moral judgments from others.

[CaptainNegative]

I don't get it. In most circumstances, if one doesn't want to be called immoral for performing an objectively cruel act, the standard course of action would be to stop doing it.

Why would one who inflicts or remunerates mistreatment, slavery, and death upon animals expect to be shielded from criticism on the count of it potentially hurting their feelings?

[flatline]

There’s a huge difference between killing animals and eating their meat. Likewise there’s a world of difference between industrial scale livestock and smaller, organic, free-range farming - on many levels. Yes, animal slaughter is require for meat production, and by eating meat we contribute to said slaughter. But there’s a ton of nuance in between, and people know this.

It’s a really disingenuous argument to pretend these are exactly the same thing from an ethical standpoint. In Buddhist ethics, for example, intention is key: monks cannot kill an animal but they may eat meat if offered. People who cry about the moral or ethical basis of some decision often make uninformed arguments believing an issue is black and white. Ethics is gray all the way down.

[bluefirebrand]

> objectively cruel act

You mean "subjectively"

Which is the whole crux of the issue isn't it?

You think it's "objectively cruel"

Many people don't think it is.

[wirrbel]

Also, slaughtering as a process never was an issue for people. My grandma slaughtered chicken in her back yard.

[PuppyTailWags]

I think it's important, as people who eat meat, to fully acknowledge the deep and societal harms that meat causes. It is well-studied that slaughterhouses are uniquely bad for a community and uniquely bad for the people who work there. Meat as a food can sometimes be bad for people, but meat as an industry is definitely bad for people. Knowing this can allow us to make more responsible choices even if we still end up eating meat, such as selecting for small, ethical farmers that also limit the trauma of themselves/those who do the slaughtering of their stock.

[pasquinelli]

if you read the comment you're replying to carefully, you'll see they never said you or anyone else was immoral for eating meat, yet that's your takeaway.

[ericmcer]

I think it is a valid point. We can only indulge in such a guilt free way because we don't see how the sausage is made.

My friend will eat burgers and chicken nuggets all day, but a chicken drumstick with it's tendons and cartilage he is unable to eat, it is a necessary disconnect for him.

My tolerance is way higher but if part of ordering dinner was choosing a living animal for them to kill and prepare I would definitely just get tofu.

[PeterisP]

IDK, I don't see any food-guilt issues from any of the countryside people I know who see "how the sausage is made" because they have done it, and have slaughtered some of the animals they have grown themselves.

And IMHO the discussions about "kill your own dinner" are quite impractical because that simply doesn't work in most conditions from the perspective of hygiene and food safety, and slaughtering is a job that does require quite some skill to do it properly, having it done by amateurs can easily be needless cruelty if you do it wrong. Like, I can butcher a chicken or a rabbit, but I would not be qualified to handle a pig or a cow properly.

[giantg2]

"We can only indulge in such a guilt free way because we don't see how the sausage is made."

That might be for some people. There are many that would have no guilt. As you point out, some people know what is in a chicken nugget (chicken) but eat it anyways. This path might slightly reduce the number of omnivores, but I doubt it would have a serious impact overall. Like any reduction in consumption from them would just lead to a lower price and increased demand either domestically or internationally.