if you’re paying for the needless slaughter of animals, you’re paying for this too. buying animal products is creating the demand, and the machine will keep crushing the innocent and exploited.
Or, you know, regulate it for safety like any other industry.
If you’re paying for ANY clothing you didn’t make yourself, you’re paying and driving demand for underage laborers in impoverished countries to make your stuff.
If you’re using the internet, that costs electricity and that’s (on average) produced by fossil fuels at power generators, spurring on demand for further pollution and destruction of our planet.
The above are examples of silly arguments, but do you see how you might have propped up an unrelated point about veganism/vegetarianism during a story about a dead teenager?
You just going to sidestep the other points above that talk about exploitation of children and the planet or do you just want to talk about cattle? Because if cattle is more important than those things, please let me know so I can write this off as a conversation not worth having.
you said yourself that they were silly, and I wholeheartedly agree.
but the whole “there’s no ethical consumption under capitalism, so we might as well violate all the rights we can!” isn’t it.
The problem is that I don’t believe there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, that statement encompasses the argument of “there’s no ethical consumption of meat” which seems to be the one you began with. I’m willing to agree there’s an over consumption of meat in US diets, I myself struggle to shove more veggies into my life and cut back on the steaks and burgers, but to frame all meat consumption as “needless slaughter” underneath an article about a teen dying in a processing is drastically tone deaf.
if you’re paying for the needless slaughter of animals, you’re paying for this too. buying animal products is creating the demand, and the machine will keep crushing the innocent and exploited.
Or, you know, regulate it for safety like any other industry.
If you’re paying for ANY clothing you didn’t make yourself, you’re paying and driving demand for underage laborers in impoverished countries to make your stuff.
If you’re using the internet, that costs electricity and that’s (on average) produced by fossil fuels at power generators, spurring on demand for further pollution and destruction of our planet.
The above are examples of silly arguments, but do you see how you might have propped up an unrelated point about veganism/vegetarianism during a story about a dead teenager?
yea, why hasn’t anyone thought to make the dismemberment factory a safe place to be?
You just going to sidestep the other points above that talk about exploitation of children and the planet or do you just want to talk about cattle? Because if cattle is more important than those things, please let me know so I can write this off as a conversation not worth having.
you said yourself that they were silly, and I wholeheartedly agree.
but the whole “there’s no ethical consumption under capitalism, so we might as well violate all the rights we can!” isn’t it.
The problem is that I don’t believe there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, that statement encompasses the argument of “there’s no ethical consumption of meat” which seems to be the one you began with. I’m willing to agree there’s an over consumption of meat in US diets, I myself struggle to shove more veggies into my life and cut back on the steaks and burgers, but to frame all meat consumption as “needless slaughter” underneath an article about a teen dying in a processing is drastically tone deaf.
If properly maintained and running at a reasonable pace, the disnemberment factory is actually a pretty safe place to work.