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.
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).
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.
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.
Don’t buy this. According to the label, only the minimum legal standards for animal welfare were observed.
I think some people may see that as a plus. Anything to own die Grünen…
Haha, hippies. No match for the Family Friendly Jesuit Brownhat Fiscal Conservative Partei in the upcoming season!
Of course, they took their dicks
Not only that, but it’s more than 3 years past its expiry date
I mean, if you’re concerned with their welfare you probably aren’t buying their ground up corpses?
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.
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).
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.
Nooo don’t call me out on my virtue signaling!!11!! I loooove animals 🥰🥰🥰 I also pay for them to be gassed and stabbed in the neck. Yum 😋😋😋
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.
You forgot the option of not killing them and just eat something else.
No I didn’t, I was specifically talking about between these two options to show how even here there’s a difference between them.