The thing is, your main argument for people putting animals' welfare above their own is "if it was a human being oppressed, they wouldn't do it." You and I both know that they would, though. Especially if it was guaranteed to help. Also, it's pretty obvious that rice, potatoes, and noodles is not a healthy diet, and my mom wouldn't be able to live off of that for, say, 40 years, and not face any major complications from that diet.
If it was as blunt as eating their flesh; they would not. The only reason most people are happy to consume products that involve any exploitation (human and non-human), is because the exploitative methods are purposefully hidden by the manufacturer.
There are plenty of people who don’t care about how their actions affect others so long as they don’t have it ‘shoved in their face’, but even they know that that’s shitty (hence why they don’t want to hear about anyone else’s pain).
I never suggested that a diet of only rice and potatoes was healthy, I just didn’t feel it was necessary to explicitly state that it was unhealthy…
-
scullyism liked this
-
tofujesus liked this
-
abookamind said:
Optimum health and is more important than the lives of thousands of animals that have to die for that life to exist, got it. Also, it’s pretty obvious that a diet focusing on meat and animal products is not a healthy diet.
-
supervegan posted this
