If the options are treating them shit before killing them or treating them better before killing, I think treating them better is still, well, better, even though the end result is that they’re killed.
Yeah because everything in the world is binary and there can’t ever be nuance.
I’m reducing my meat intake, but I do still eat meat every now and then. When I do, I tend to consider the impact on animal welfare and the environment. Eating meat from an animal that has lived relatively free and happy life is a lot better to me than one that has been locked inside for most of it’s life.
Meat intake reduction is my main target as well as the meanings of the labels have not as big an impact one would hope for, but at least it’s not a complete scam. I have to make sure I eat a balanced diet anyway because otherwise I get intestinal problems, so it’s best for me to eat vegetarian or vegan more often.
It’s good that you mindfully reduce meat intake and at least think about it, and I’m not trying to force you to do anything, but the logic here doesn’t follow. You could equally say “everything in this world has nuance and can never be binary (so this can’t be binary)”.
Do you know the idea of a kind slavemaster? Namely: if someone told me they only buy products of slavery if they’re made by slaves with kind masters, I’d be a bit baffled and I’d say “but it’s still slavery isn’t it?” There’s basically nothing worse you can do for something’s welfare than having it destroyed, no? Barring edge cases where you’re putting something out of its misery (definitely not the case when making animals into hamburgers).
Yes indeed. Upon seeing this thread I thought I need to add the information you added, but going from dick to thick does absolutely not improve the situation.
Add comment