[dao-]

But he already said he had a problem with inhumanely produced meat, in other words, actions that cause grave harm to animals. Why would you have that standard at all if you don't care if it's met?

(There's also the land use and emissions angle. Arguably meat consumption causes harm to all humans and beyond.)

[fwn]

> he already said he had a problem with inhumanely produced meat

Well, technically they said that they don't "like to eat inhumanly raised animal products".

But I guess the general argument is whether their stance is inherently consistent.

...which is pointless to deconstruct without further input from the parent.

[ianai]

For me, it’s a “chose your battles” sort of thing. I don’t seek confrontation nor even diminishing others. Life is too, too short. I further hope that my nonviolence will lead others to treat me nonviolently.

[misterman0]

But is the parent really needed here? This discussion seems to have become "how dare you take a stance in this issue that we cannot fully understand"?

How about, while hungry they are sickened by the cruelty involved in producing food, but while full, they simply have other, more important things on their mind?

[joaomacp]

I don't care that much about animals, as far as their pain or feelings.

If we slaughter ants and fruit flies while not caring for their rights, what is that different from a cow or dog?

I know this is an unpopular position, but I don't see the logic in animal rights.

Now, when we're talking about maintaining ecosystems, I'm all for it. What's happening to bees is bad for humans.

But creating cattle just to slaughter and eat it, that's just part of our nature. Like a lion slaughters a gazelle. We just evolved to have the tools to breed them...

Maybe cattle breeding is inefficient and pollutes the planet. That's also bad,but it's the best way we've found yet to feed billions of people and keep affordable food prices.