this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2025
386 points (98.5% liked)

Political Memes

9779 readers
2729 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes 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.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

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
[–] NeilBru@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (4 children)

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.

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 3 points 3 days ago

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.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 days ago (2 children)

its natural complex amino acid density

lysine, just eat more legumes.

[–] roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Yes, because as we all know, if you're craving a nice steak a bowl of lentils will be totally satisfying.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca -5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

or learn to cook? red meat eaters have all kinds of diseases from chronic inflammation.

[–] roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 days ago

I don't think that's an argument for legumes. I'm a hell of a cook now and when I make beef wellington, confit lamb, or curry goat I'm demonstrating a lot more skill than I did back in college when legumes featured more heavily in my menu.

[–] NeilBru@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

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,

Red meat is a complete source of dietary amino acids, meaning it contains all essential amino acids (EAAs), and in addition, it contains all the non-essential amino acids (NEAAs). Red meat is also the most abundant source of bioavailable heme-iron essential for muscle growth and cardiovascular health. 

Finally, red meat may also be situationally more beneficial to some groups than others, particularly in the cases of sex and aging. For pregnant women, increases in red meat consumption may be beneficial to increase the intake of semi-essential amino acids, while in the elderly, increases in red meat consumption may better preserve muscle mass compared with other dietary protein sources.

[–] aeternum@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 3 days ago (3 children)

How do you ethically take someone’s life from someone when that someone doesn’t want to die?

[–] NeilBru@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

someone's life

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.

[–] aeternum@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

We may be omnivores, perhaps, but that means we can eat animal flesh or plants. Why would we kill 2T animals a year when we don’t need to?

[–] NeilBru@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] FridaySteve@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Soulg@ani.social 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] NeilBru@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

Thank you, sincerely, for putting into simple words what I've been trying to explain to self-righteous militant vegans with little success.

[–] NeilBru@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

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.

[–] aeternum@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

All animal ag is cruel. You can't take the life of an animal who wants to live without it being cruel.

[–] NeilBru@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

My "cruelty" in consuming animal flesh is acceptable to me as I am an omnivore.

[–] Strawberry@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] NeilBru@lemmy.world -1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I don't understand. Is your argument that bears do have ethical and social responsibility regarding humans?

[–] Strawberry@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Try to reread your comment and mine, and think about it a little longer.

[–] NeilBru@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

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

My Statement Was About: Your Reply Misrepresents It As: The Logical Error in Your Response
Biological Capacity Identical Ethical/Political Agency Reductio ad Absurdum / Straw Man
The fact that Homo sapiens are omnivorous animals and predators driven by evolutionary needs (justifying the capacity to eat meat). A claim that humans and bears share identical social, political, and ethical traits (e.g., the capacity for voting rights). You took my comparison (predation as a biological reality) and pushed it to an absurd extreme (voting bears) to avoid addressing my actual point.
The amoral reality of predation in nature, which makes the prey's opinion irrelevant to the predator's act. A dismissal of all human ethical systems and social responsibilities, implying I advocate for complete ethical equivalence with wildlife. My argument accepts that humans have ethical agency, which is why I explicitly called for avoiding factory-farmed meat. You ignored the ethical choice to focus on an irrelevant political concept.
My defense for eating ethically sourced meat, acknowledging the failure of factory farms. A crude defense of all forms of killing for food, regardless of method or context. The entire point of my comment was to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable meat consumption, a nuance your fallacy completely discards.

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.

[–] Strawberry@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] NeilBru@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Strawberry@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 8 hours ago

sapere aude, my friend

[–] Soulg@ani.social 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] aeternum@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

why don't you believe an animal who is capable of feeling love, pain, curiousity etc is worthy of living their life? They are sentient beings.

[–] OrganicMustard@lemmy.world -2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

They paid more for it, so that makes it okay

[–] NeilBru@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Yes, it's better to eat meat from animals that aren't "factory-farmed", which is, as one would expect, more expensive.

[–] OrganicMustard@lemmy.world -1 points 3 days ago (2 children)

My slaves are ethically sourced, I paid more for them. It's a shame people can't see how good I am.

[–] Velypso@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] NeilBru@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] aeternum@lemmy.blahaj.zone -2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Fun fact: Even holocaust survivors called what we do to animals another holocaust.

[–] NeilBru@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

Fun fact: I already said humans should avoid "factory farmed" meat.

[–] OrganicMustard@lemmy.world -2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Thankfully they have you to tell them when to be offended. Fuck off.

[–] NeilBru@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

There's no way you could have known, but I am, by blood, part of one of those historically enslaved groups I mentioned.

Fuck off.

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.

collapsed inline media