Sustenance doesn’t mean “the only thing available”.
Look, I’m excited for lab-grown meat. I’ve reduced my meat consumption significantly over the last year or two. I may not be “in your camp” exactly, but I’m an ally. And it’s probably better to earn and keep allies than to argue semantics in an adversarial way. Win more flies with honey and all that.
I assume you agree o the general statement “Animals shouldn’t be killed for pleasure.”
If you then have two options for food, one including animal meat and one without, all other things being equal, even nutrition wise, then how is it not “for pleasure” to chose the option with meat?
So you agree that if it isn’t for sustenance, in the case where you can just simply eat something else, it should be illegal?
Sustenance doesn’t mean “the only thing available”.
Look, I’m excited for lab-grown meat. I’ve reduced my meat consumption significantly over the last year or two. I may not be “in your camp” exactly, but I’m an ally. And it’s probably better to earn and keep allies than to argue semantics in an adversarial way. Win more flies with honey and all that.
I assume you agree o the general statement “Animals shouldn’t be killed for pleasure.”
If you then have two options for food, one including animal meat and one without, all other things being equal, even nutrition wise, then how is it not “for pleasure” to chose the option with meat?
Killing for pleasure implies hunting for sport.
Chopping up a cow so that tons of people can buy its meat is different than someone hunting bears for sport and leaving the corpse where it lands.
??? lmao no it doesn’t.
Sorry that your metaphor didn’t land with everyone.
for most people making taht decision does not involve killing anything. both options have already been harvested and presented.
“Harvested” xD nice euphemism
how else do you describe gathering farmed food?
no one said that. you’re making a leap of logic.
It was a question. I said that.