In a situation where the crops have been mostly destroyed for a season, and people are starving now, I don't think its much of a choice whether to eat meat or die watching crops grow.
But this is all far off in super hypothetical realm of what kind of famine there is, the scale, whats available, etc. Which isn't applicable to this article which just states they're taking rich people dogs to serve at rich people restaurants.
I just have an issue with moral arguments of veganism that disregard context. I agree that it makes more sense to grow crops, and that its much more feasible to feed large populations with plants. But I also won't put the value of an animal's life over the value of a human's life.
This is a really good example of where meat plays a crucial role. Some people on here would sooner tell some mongolian tribes to just grow beans than to understand not everywhere has a damn farmers market or organic co-op.
Some people on here would sooner tell some mongolian tribes to just grow beans than to understand not everywhere has a damn farmers market or organic co-op.
No one is telling mongolian tribes anything, mongolian tribesmen are not on chapo.chat (lets change that though, that'd be pretty sick)
The thing you don't get about vegans is that we don't give a single shit about people doing what they need to to survive far from the developed world. they're not the problem. the problem is people like you using the existence of those people as an excuse to keep supporting murder
It definitely takes fewer resources to raise squash than it does to send the police to confiscate dogs from (almost certainly) belligerent owners. Like, there's a reason animal control wears bullet proof armor.
deleted by creator
Placing more value on an animal life over a human life is liberalism.
deleted by creator
I think I actually meant to reply to the top level comment in regards to
deleted by creator
In a situation where the crops have been mostly destroyed for a season, and people are starving now, I don't think its much of a choice whether to eat meat or die watching crops grow.
But this is all far off in super hypothetical realm of what kind of famine there is, the scale, whats available, etc. Which isn't applicable to this article which just states they're taking rich people dogs to serve at rich people restaurants.
I just have an issue with moral arguments of veganism that disregard context. I agree that it makes more sense to grow crops, and that its much more feasible to feed large populations with plants. But I also won't put the value of an animal's life over the value of a human's life.
deleted by creator
This really depends on the environment. It's easy to put a bunch of goats on a mountainside that would take a lot of effort to prepare for crops.
deleted by creator
This is a really good example of where meat plays a crucial role. Some people on here would sooner tell some mongolian tribes to just grow beans than to understand not everywhere has a damn farmers market or organic co-op.
Its seriously frustrating.
No one is telling mongolian tribes anything, mongolian tribesmen are not on chapo.chat (lets change that though, that'd be pretty sick)
The thing you don't get about vegans is that we don't give a single shit about people doing what they need to to survive far from the developed world. they're not the problem. the problem is people like you using the existence of those people as an excuse to keep supporting murder
Killing a bunch of dogs to stick it to the rich is psychopathic
Not saying spiteful dog killing is good.
I'm saying incorporating a lesson on veganism during a famine is bad. There's a certain privilege involved in choosing not to eat certain things.
It isn't incorporating a lesson on veganism during a famine, the story is fake and as far as I am aware, there is no famine in the DPRK currently.
It also isn't choosing not to eat certain things, it's choosing to kill members of someone's family for food when other sources are available
It definitely takes fewer resources to raise squash than it does to send the police to confiscate dogs from (almost certainly) belligerent owners. Like, there's a reason animal control wears bullet proof armor.