this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2025
395 points (98.5% liked)
Political Memes
11163 readers
3237 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I enjoy beef for its flavor, culinary versatility in cuisine, and its natural complex amino acid density compared to other protein sources.
That said, the mass production of beef is a public health and environmental crisis. What I pay for "ethically" sourced beef is what it should be priced at per gram in every market, if I were calling the shots.
Impossible beef is to the point where it's almost indistinguishable from real meat, and has a complete amino acid profile. If you haven't tried it yet, I'd highly recommend picking some up! Their burger patties are especially good in an air fryer.
lysine, just eat more legumes.
Yes, because as we all know, if you're craving a nice steak a bowl of lentils will be totally satisfying.
It's more than just lysine. Too much of any one food is not good for anyone. There are definite carcinogenic effects of eating too much red meat, especially when prepared in certain ways.
However,
Do you consider animals (other than homo sapiens) "people" with "natural rights" to life?
If so, then there's no way for ethical animal husbandry for human consumption.
However, my opinion is that we homo sapiens are animals, along with other ancient hominids and current high primates, and we are omnivorous predators. Our prey's opinion on its right to life is inconsequential to whether we kill it to eat it or not.
Hypothetically similar to a brown bear hunting hikers along a trail through Yellowstone. The bear doesn't care if a hiker wants to live or not; it wants to eat the human.
Yeah... that was my point. Meat for humans in the contemporary era should cost more, there should be far less consumption per capita, and meat producers shouldn't be so cruel to the animals. However, some of us enjoy animal flesh. Some of us are in fact healthier when we consume it. We can consume animal flesh in a better way.
If you're healthier consuming meat than you would be consuming a plant-based diet, you're a statistical outlier. Most people would be healthier with a plant-based diet.
Most people would be healthier eating more plants because most people (in the US) eat too much meat and not enough plants as it is. That doesn't mean that meat is inherently unhealthy
Thank you, sincerely, for putting into simple words what I've been trying to explain to self-righteous militant vegans with little success.
Too much of one thing (in this case, meat) is bad for you. Measured and monitored diversity in one's diet is optimal.
Here's a great article explaining the risks and benefits of meat consumption.
My "cruelty" in consuming animal flesh is acceptable to me as I am an omnivore.
Let's give brown bears the right to vote if there's no difference in ethical agency or social responsibility between them and us, as you claim to believe. We can set up polling booths at the salmon streams.
I don't understand. Is your argument that bears do have ethical and social responsibility regarding humans?
Try to reread your comment and mine, and think about it a little longer.
Here's a language model's take on this thread.
That reply commits a logical fallacy. It's an example of Reductio ad Absurdum (or Appeal to Ridicule) and a Straw Man, intentionally misrepresenting my point to make it sound ridiculous.
My argument was about biological reality (humans are omnivorous predators) to defend the consumption of ethically sourced meat. Your counter-argument shifted the focus to an absurd political non-issue.
Your Logical Fallacy Explained
I used the bear analogy to highlight our fundamental nature as predators. I did not suggest we run for Congress together. The debate is about biological capacity and the ethical choices we make with that capacity, not about who gets a ballot.
Edited for clarity.
You seem to be completely unaware of my point, but I am not interested in arguing with autocomplete. In the future, maybe try having the courage to think with your human mind. I'll once again encourage you to reread the comment chain and think about your argument and my joke about it. Since you're a fan of philosophy buzzwords, here's some further reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
Since we're having so much fun, here's another language model's critique of your reply:
Yes, I did use a language model to analyze and structure my previous reply. My goal was to provide the most logically precise critique of the fallacy in your response.
Your choice was to attack the source of the critique, call my argument 'autocomplete,' and question my 'human mind.' If a logically sound, structured argument—even one assisted by AI—is superior to your subsequent move of simply linking two Wikipedia articles, that reflects poorly on the substance of your own position.
Your attempt to paint me as a sophist relying on 'buzzwords' while your contribution is uncontextualized links to remedial philosophy is a textbook example of intellectual posturing. An accusation that admittedly could be leveled at me for using an AI to detail your logical fallacies, if it wasn't for the fact that you had already shifted the tone with their dismissive "voting bears"
My argument was not a simple Appeal to Nature. You committed a Straw Man by reducing my statement—that humans are omnivorous predators with an ethical duty to minimize suffering—to the claim that humans and bears share identical ethical agency.
I used the bear analogy to establish the 'Is' (our biological capacity for predation).
'Ought' (the ethical duty to source meat humanely) is evident in the initial comment I made to someone else, which you glossed over on purpose.
My core point is that we apply our higher ethical reasoning to how we fulfill our natural capacity. Your 'voting bears' reply failed to address the ethical distinction I explicitly made.
My call for ethically sourced meat consumption is the direct result of applying the 'Ought' to the 'Is.' I accept the biological reality but reject the factory farming industry based on ethical and environmental responsibilities. You rely on disingenuous debate tactics intended to dismiss the premise.
sapere aude, my friend
Your condescension notwithstanding, it's safe to say we're certainly not friends, by any stretch.
Here some more fun takes from a language model, that "dares to know'.
And that's why I think it's fine I ate my neighbors's dog, Your Honor.
That isn't a reply; it's a desperate failure of reading comprehension packaged as a lazy joke.
What you typed is a Slippery Slope fallacy, arguing that acknowledging biological reality (that humans are omnivorous predators) somehow forces me into committing a criminal act: eating a neighbor's dog. You deliberately ignore the obvious distinction upon which the entire debate rests: the line between livestock and pets.
Me: Consume ethically raised livestock (the "prey" for omnivorous), but reject the immorality and environmental risks of factory farms.
You: if you eat any meat, you must logically be fine with pet theft and consumption.
The difference between a cow, pig, chicken, etc. and your neighbor's dog is precisely where human law, morality, and social norms have been drawn for centuries. Some cultures even find it normal to consume dogs. To pretend that acknowledging our predatory nature invalidates all those distinctions is not as clever as you think it is—it's just a transparent attempt to substitute emotional shock value for actual logical engagement.
You're also using Reductio ad Absurdum, just like other losers on this thread, because you can't defeat the core premise of what I said. You have to drag this into absurdity to make it seem like I'm advocating for social collapse, rather than just advocating for better ethical sourcing. If your only move is hypothetical "Your Honor" theatrics about a pet dog that's kidnapped and eaten, you've admitted you have no genuine counter-argument.
You suck at advocating for veganism.
Waiter, I didn't ask for the sophist word salad, can you take this back, please?
Sure sir, here's a steak. You need protein.
It better be one of those ethics steaks the bears eat
Ethics steaks. That the bears eat.
Cows aren't people
They paid more for it, so that makes it okay
Yes, it's better to eat meat from animals that aren't "factory-farmed", which is, as one would expect, more expensive.
My slaves are ethically sourced, I paid more for them. It's a shame people can't see how good I am.
Calling animals slaves doesnt bring people to your cause, they just roll their eyes at you and move on.
Don’t bother. It’s a cult.
The historical context of human chattel slavery, which involved systematic racism, dehumanization, and violence is unique in its human dimension.
I think that many people, particularly those from historically oppressed groups, would find your attempted comparison a deeply offensive false equivalency and reductive of human suffering.
Fun fact: I already said humans should avoid "factory farmed" meat.
Thankfully they have you to tell them when to be offended. Fuck off.
There's no way you could have known, but I am, by blood, part of one of those historically enslaved groups I mentioned.
So, please, with all that "love" in your heart, gargle my balls while you continue straw-manning, falsely equating, and morally posturing on the internet.