147
What isn't illegal but should be?
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2024
147 points (96.2% liked)
Asklemmy
44129 readers
269 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
This is generally illegal and heavily fined as well. Depends on where you live, I guess.
Also depends on which animals
It’s generally legal and heavily subsidised. See also animal agriculture.
Sustenance is different from pleasure
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.
that's not killing for pleasure.
Does your country not allow hunting?
Hunting isn't purely done for fun, it is also done to harvest meat
and ecological conservation
Absolutely, the biggest nature lovers in my family are all hunters, they enjoy being in the woods, they enjoy seeing animals, they follow the rules to only harvest as much they are allowed and only during the season permitted.
In my country it's mostly done for fun.
So people go out, shoot a deer and just leave it there?
Seems like an extreme waste to me...
It's usually not that much extra effort to take the carcass and bring it to a butcher, so they do that sometimes. But yeah. Often, just leave it.
It's actually not all that bad because we have a lack of natural predators (because we already hunted them almost to extinction) so hunting keeps the deer population from exploding.
Ok, so they also do make a good deed in adition to just hunting.
More like helping fix a problem they caused in the first place, but yeah.
Trophy hunting, after all this time, is still legal and big business.
Taste pleasure.