all 65 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[+] 26 points 1 year ago (53 children)
  • [–] [S] 16 points 1 year ago

    Yeah, I can dig that. Frankly my outrage is more about the cutting of nutritional assistance to impoverished humans, but the funding of industrial beef farming is also pretty fucked up.

    They're taking the money from people who need it and are using it to pay people in Argentina to torture and kill cows.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (51 children)

    I enjoy beef for its flavor, culinary versatility in cuisine, and its natural complex amino acid density compared to other protein sources.

    That said, the mass production of beef is a public health and environmental crisis. What I pay for "ethically" sourced beef is what it should be priced at per gram in every market, if I were calling the shots.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 51 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Impossible beef is to the point where it's almost indistinguishable from real meat, and has a complete amino acid profile. If you haven't tried it yet, I'd highly recommend picking some up! Their burger patties are especially good in an air fryer.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -2 points 1 year ago (35 children)
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (22 children)

    someone's life

    Do you consider animals (other than homo sapiens) "people" with "natural rights" to life?

    If so, then there's no way for ethical animal husbandry for human consumption.

    However, my opinion is that we homo sapiens are animals, along with other ancient hominids and current high primates, and we are omnivorous predators. Our prey's opinion on its right to life is inconsequential to whether we kill it to eat it or not.

    Hypothetically similar to a brown bear hunting hikers along a trail through Yellowstone. The bear doesn't care if a hiker wants to live or not; it wants to eat the human.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (6 children)

    Yeah... that was my point. Meat for humans in the contemporary era should cost more, there should be far less consumption per capita, and meat producers shouldn't be so cruel to the animals. However, some of us enjoy animal flesh. Some of us are in fact healthier when we consume it. We can consume animal flesh in a better way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    If you're healthier consuming meat than you would be consuming a plant-based diet, you're a statistical outlier. Most people would be healthier with a plant-based diet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Most people would be healthier eating more plants because most people (in the US) eat too much meat and not enough plants as it is. That doesn't mean that meat is inherently unhealthy

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

    Let's give brown bears the right to vote if there's no difference in ethical agency or social responsibility between them and us, as you claim to believe. We can set up polling booths at the salmon streams.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    I don't understand. Is your argument that bears do have ethical and social responsibility regarding humans?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    Try to reread your comment and mine, and think about it a little longer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    Here's a language model's take on this thread.

    That reply commits a logical fallacy. It's an example of Reductio ad Absurdum (or Appeal to Ridicule) and a Straw Man, intentionally misrepresenting my point to make it sound ridiculous.

    My argument was about biological reality (humans are omnivorous predators) to defend the consumption of ethically sourced meat. Your counter-argument shifted the focus to an absurd political non-issue.


    Your Logical Fallacy Explained

    My Statement Was About: Your Reply Misrepresents It As: The Logical Error in Your Response
    Biological Capacity Identical Ethical/Political Agency Reductio ad Absurdum / Straw Man
    The fact that Homo sapiens are omnivorous animals and predators driven by evolutionary needs (justifying the capacity to eat meat). A claim that humans and bears share identical social, political, and ethical traits (e.g., the capacity for voting rights). You took my comparison (predation as a biological reality) and pushed it to an absurd extreme (voting bears) to avoid addressing my actual point.
    The amoral reality of predation in nature, which makes the prey's opinion irrelevant to the predator's act. A dismissal of all human ethical systems and social responsibilities, implying I advocate for complete ethical equivalence with wildlife. My argument accepts that humans have ethical agency, which is why I explicitly called for avoiding factory-farmed meat. You ignored the ethical choice to focus on an irrelevant political concept.
    My defense for eating ethically sourced meat, acknowledging the failure of factory farms. A crude defense of all forms of killing for food, regardless of method or context. The entire point of my comment was to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable meat consumption, a nuance your fallacy completely discards.

    I used the bear analogy to highlight our fundamental nature as predators. I did not suggest we run for Congress together. The debate is about biological capacity and the ethical choices we make with that capacity, not about who gets a ballot.

    Edited for clarity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    You seem to be completely unaware of my point, but I am not interested in arguing with autocomplete. In the future, maybe try having the courage to think with your human mind. I'll once again encourage you to reread the comment chain and think about your argument and my joke about it. Since you're a fan of philosophy buzzwords, here's some further reading:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Since we're having so much fun, here's another language model's critique of your reply:

    Yes, I did use a language model to analyze and structure my previous reply. My goal was to provide the most logically precise critique of the fallacy in your response.

    Your choice was to attack the source of the critique, call my argument 'autocomplete,' and question my 'human mind.' If a logically sound, structured argument—even one assisted by AI—is superior to your subsequent move of simply linking two Wikipedia articles, that reflects poorly on the substance of your own position.

    Your attempt to paint me as a sophist relying on 'buzzwords' while your contribution is uncontextualized links to remedial philosophy is a textbook example of intellectual posturing. An accusation that admittedly could be leveled at me for using an AI to detail your logical fallacies, if it wasn't for the fact that you had already shifted the tone with their dismissive "voting bears"

    My argument was not a simple Appeal to Nature. You committed a Straw Man by reducing my statement—that humans are omnivorous predators with an ethical duty to minimize suffering—to the claim that humans and bears share identical ethical agency.

    I used the bear analogy to establish the 'Is' (our biological capacity for predation).

    'Ought' (the ethical duty to source meat humanely) is evident in the initial comment I made to someone else, which you glossed over on purpose.

    My core point is that we apply our higher ethical reasoning to how we fulfill our natural capacity. Your 'voting bears' reply failed to address the ethical distinction I explicitly made.

    My call for ethically sourced meat consumption is the direct result of applying the 'Ought' to the 'Is.' I accept the biological reality but reject the factory farming industry based on ethical and environmental responsibilities. You rely on disingenuous debate tactics intended to dismiss the premise.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Your condescension notwithstanding, it's safe to say we're certainly not friends, by any stretch.

    Here some more fun takes from a language model, that "dares to know'.

    "Sapere aude" means 'dare to know,' the motto of Enlightenment reason.

    It's ironic you use it as a closing remark after relying on a Straw Man fallacy ("voting bears") and an Ad Hominem attack ("autocomplete") instead of engaging the ethical distinction I explicitly made regarding ethically sourced meat.

    Applying reason means addressing the actual argument, not running from it with a haughty, snide attitude, citing your Latin phrase as a dismissal.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    And that's why I think it's fine I ate my neighbors's dog, Your Honor.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    And that’s why I think it’s fine I ate my neighbors’s dog, Your Honor.

    That isn't a reply; it's a desperate failure of reading comprehension packaged as a lazy joke.

    What you typed is a Slippery Slope fallacy, arguing that acknowledging biological reality (that humans are omnivorous predators) somehow forces me into committing a criminal act: eating a neighbor's dog. You deliberately ignore the obvious distinction upon which the entire debate rests: the line between livestock and pets.

    Me: Consume ethically raised livestock (the "prey" for omnivorous), but reject the immorality and environmental risks of factory farms.

    You: if you eat any meat, you must logically be fine with pet theft and consumption.

    The difference between a cow, pig, chicken, etc. and your neighbor's dog is precisely where human law, morality, and social norms have been drawn for centuries. Some cultures even find it normal to consume dogs. To pretend that acknowledging our predatory nature invalidates all those distinctions is not as clever as you think it is—it's just a transparent attempt to substitute emotional shock value for actual logical engagement.

    You're also using Reductio ad Absurdum, just like other losers on this thread, because you can't defeat the core premise of what I said. You have to drag this into absurdity to make it seem like I'm advocating for social collapse, rather than just advocating for better ethical sourcing. If your only move is hypothetical "Your Honor" theatrics about a pet dog that's kidnapped and eaten, you've admitted you have no genuine counter-argument.

    You suck at advocating for veganism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Waiter, I didn't ask for the sophist word salad, can you take this back, please?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    They paid more for it, so that makes it okay

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

    Yes, it's better to eat meat from animals that aren't "factory-farmed", which is, as one would expect, more expensive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    My slaves are ethically sourced, I paid more for them. It's a shame people can't see how good I am.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    The historical context of human chattel slavery, which involved systematic racism, dehumanization, and violence is unique in its human dimension.

    I think that many people, particularly those from historically oppressed groups, would find your attempted comparison a deeply offensive false equivalency and reductive of human suffering.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Thankfully they have you to tell them when to be offended. Fuck off.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    There's no way you could have known, but I am, by blood, part of one of those historically enslaved groups I mentioned.

    Fuck off.

    So, please, with all that "love" in your heart, gargle my balls while you continue straw-manning, falsely equating, and morally posturing on the internet.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    its natural complex amino acid density

    lysine, just eat more legumes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Yes, because as we all know, if you're craving a nice steak a bowl of lentils will be totally satisfying.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    or learn to cook? red meat eaters have all kinds of diseases from chronic inflammation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    I don't think that's an argument for legumes. I'm a hell of a cook now and when I make beef wellington, confit lamb, or curry goat I'm demonstrating a lot more skill than I did back in college when legumes featured more heavily in my menu.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    It's more than just lysine. Too much of any one food is not good for anyone. There are definite carcinogenic effects of eating too much red meat, especially when prepared in certain ways.

    However,

    Red meat is a complete source of dietary amino acids, meaning it contains all essential amino acids (EAAs), and in addition, it contains all the non-essential amino acids (NEAAs). Red meat is also the most abundant source of bioavailable heme-iron essential for muscle growth and cardiovascular health. 

    Finally, red meat may also be situationally more beneficial to some groups than others, particularly in the cases of sex and aging. For pregnant women, increases in red meat consumption may be beneficial to increase the intake of semi-essential amino acids, while in the elderly, increases in red meat consumption may better preserve muscle mass compared with other dietary protein sources.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -14 points 1 year ago (8 children)
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    Cool story, hoe.

    Anyway, here's some smart people writing about amino acids in "red" meat.

    Or are they PrEtEnTiOuS too?

    No, I get it. They're obviously industry plants.

    Edit: Wrong article fixed. But yeah, so pretentious.

    Red meat is a complete source of dietary amino acids, meaning it contains all essential amino acids (EAAs), and in addition, it contains all the non-essential amino acids (NEAAs). Red meat is also the most abundant source of bioavailable heme-iron essential for muscle growth and cardiovascular health. 

    Finally, red meat may also be situationally more beneficial to some groups than others, particularly in the cases of sex and aging. For pregnant women, increases in red meat consumption may be beneficial to increase the intake of semi-essential amino acids, while in the elderly, increases in red meat consumption may better preserve muscle mass compared with other dietary protein sources.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -3 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Well, you snide douchebag, as I said before, I like beefs culinary versatility, or if that's too pretentious for you, it tastes good.

    As far as amino acids go:

    Meat is a major source of dietary protein and fat across the globe. Red and white meat are the major terms consumers use to refer to types of meat; however, these terms do not fully encompass the range of nutrients provided by meat sources. Red meat refers to meat from mammalian skeletal muscle, while white meat refers to poultry. Red and white meat both provide a wide range of nutritional components in the context of fatty acids, amino acids and micronutrients. Importantly, it has been demonstrated that amino acid profiles differ between red meat and white meat as well as between different sources of red meat. Red meat is a complete source of dietary amino acids, meaning it contains all essential amino acids (EAAs), and in addition, it contains all the non-essential amino acids (NEAAs). Red meat is also the most abundant source of bioavailable heme-iron essential for muscle growth and cardiovascular health.

    Meat is considered a complete dietary protein, meaning it contains all of the essential amino acids (EAA). Additionally, meat contains 11 non-essential (NEAA) or semi-essential amino acids used by the human body. As previously mentioned, AAs are commonly divided into 3 categories in the context of nutritional requirements: EAA, NEAA and semi-essential amino acids. EAAs, also known as indispensable amino acids, are those which the body is unable to produce in sufficient quantities internally.

    AAs also play key roles in biological functions such as maintenance of acid-base balance, hormone secretion, and nutrient metabolism]. Additionally, as the main source of exogenous nitrogen, AAs play a crucial role in maintaining nitrogen balance within the body.

    There's a lot more in there, but big word scary, I know.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Cool story, hoe. You seem like the sort who masturbates to picture of you masturbating.

    Keep malding about nothing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Argentinian here. I also hate this because it means I have to stand this idiotic management even longer

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    The sooner we remove an industry propped up by slaughtering animals for profit the better

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    dont you mean soybeans? cattle is brazils thing.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    I don’t want to be a pariah in front of my people but honest to god… the kind of food insecurity that Americans experience in USA is a literal open buffet when compared to the starvation in these countries:

    Sudan Yemen Afghanistan South Sudan Democratic Republic of Congo Somalia Nigeria Haiti Mali Syria Central African Republic Ethiopia Kenya

    I point this out because ridiculous hyperbole makes us look as bad as… the opposition.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I wouldnt be suprised if the USA's food insecurity only exists for profit, as in they have enough domestic production, but choose to export high quality stuff and import low quality for the sake of corporate profit, AFAIK this actually happens with beef industry, they literally export high quality beef only to import lower quality argentinian and brazillian beef (mostly for things like burgers patties)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    So… you witness a little socialism in the US and claim it’s fucked? This is progress.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • You're not wrong and I think a lot of Americans miss that perspective. We're bottom of list in comparison to "developed" with similarly wealthy economies, but we haven't reached the poverty of poorest countries, yet. Right now we're more comparable to an imperial power like Russia, but even then we're probably falling behind (at least they have a strong labor market thanks to their war killing so many young men).

    That said, it is entirely possible for us to reach that level of devastation if the coming depression is bad enough and we enter a prolonged period of war and instability following Trump. I wouldn't bet money on it, but it is more likely than most want to believe.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)