The biggest thing with that is just that vegetarianism isn't at all miserable, honestly. It's just food. And you can definitely minimise your impact by avoiding companies like Nestle, who have a history of doing terrible things to people and animals alike.
-
-
Replying to @listmouse
oh if only mere vegetarianism were anything close to good enough
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime
I mean, vegetarianism prevents you from having to deal with animals being killed for you to eat (& the gross bits of the process of food creation). Wasn't giving a solution for full eco-friendliness, but something's better than nothing & most people avoid fur already, etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @listmouse
basically i don't feel that something *is* better than nothing if the reasons for something, iteratively applied, wind up at veganism + you can't have pets because that's slavery + we must wipe out all wild and feral predators + shut down industrial civilization at 6B lives cost
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime
That's only extremist shit, though. Like, sure you may like free software but you don't want to use something with the Open Watcom licence or whatever.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @listmouse
i do tend toward being the kind of idiot who thinks that if you aren't going to commit to the principle all the way then why bother with it at all though
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime
I mean like, think of it like climate change action or whatev: do you really wanna stop all industrial progress to save the planet, or die because you did nothing? Nah nobody wants either so you go with a happy medium.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @listmouse @chaosprime
For example, my "principle" with being vegetarian is just that I don't want to kill animals unnecessarily because it seems wrong to me on a moral level. If it came down to it, it's based on what's necessary, so I'd end up eating meat.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @listmouse @chaosprime
This is how it is with most people who aren't full-on PETA level. (Who're massive hypocrites by the way, and shouldn't be trusted with anything. They even kill animals ffs.)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @listmouse @chaosprime
Also not having pets because it's slavery is kinda dumb. Go to a shelter, because they're literally going to die if someone doesn't adopt them and take care of them.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
all that seems super sensible to me, what i don't get is how, if you grant a moral value to animals living or dying and therefore we should be nice to them because milquetoast values etc, the extremist PETA-skipping-the-hypocrisy position is wrong
-
-
Replying to @chaosprime
PETA's is largely based on arbitrary values that make no sense. IE, cats tend to enjoy being fed and being warm, inside. They don't seem to be disadvantaged or hurt by being pets, and it doesn't tend to be slavery as they aren't forced to work. Ergo, having cats isn't bad.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @listmouse
the polemic i was recently exposed to regarding appears to essentially be that they do in fact work, providing whatever emotional value you get out of having them around, which makes them an "entertainment slave"
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - 9 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.