The only question is: Which side of history do you want to be on? On the side of the people who have spent their lives paying for animal suffering or on the side of the people who have worked for the welfare and rights of animals?

[–] i_stole_ur_taco@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

I don't eat animals, but I can guarantee that's not the thing that's going to put me on the right side of history. On a long enough timeline, we're all monsters.

[–] academician@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I admire the strength of your convictions if you truly believe that not eating animals is going to put you on the "right side of history" akin to anti-slavery activists. I just don't see that happening on our lifetimes, and don't much care - unlike slaveholders, the vast majority of human history has consisted of omnivores. If a future generation of man wants to cast judgement on me, I'll be in the company of most of mankind.

[–] poplargrove@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I figured that when you said theyre not alive when you "do it" you were implying you didnt like them being killed. What did you mean by that then?

[–] academician@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I'm really not sure how you got that from what I wrote, so I don't know how to respond.

[–] chetradley@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

Correct, but it is still harm being inflicted on animals purely for pleasure, right? I just think it's interesting that most people don't have qualms with that, when they would under other circumstances.

For instance: killing an animal because you like the sight of it = psychopath. Killing an animal because you like the sound of it = serial killer in the making. Killing an animal because you like the taste of it = normal.