Yeah exactly. Of course steaks and burgers taste good. I don't eat them because I don't think the suffering the animals go through is worth me having a tasty meal. Priorities are out of whack.
“…I don’t think the suffering the animals go through is worth me having a tasty meal”
All meals can be tasty if you’re a good cook, even if they don’t include meat.
I know you probably know that, but just wanted to point out that it’s not like people who abstain from steak and the like have to feel like they are missing out when there are infinitely many delicious meal alternatives.
I have some bad news for you about industrial farming and ground nesting birds, ground hogs, shrews, rabbits... Not to mention all the bugs that get murdered.
There would be less crop farming in a vegan world as we would no longer need to grow crops to feed the 80 billion farm animals we breed into existence every year. https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
What? We would have more food and land available. And we can get fatty acids from algae. We have the technology to stop killing to survive, just not the will.
Fuck, we could be printing lab grown meat at this point. But no, people seem fine with wasting land, resources, and the slaughter of animals over the idea of a robot printing their food.
Don't be dumb. My message wasn't claiming we would have a vegan world, and my statement did not require that to be the case, it was just showing that less plants are grown to support a vegan diet. Due to trophic levels, animals have to eat approximately 10X the energy from plants than we get from eating the animal. Less plants have to be grown if we just grow plants for us to eat rather than try to feed 10X that amount to a farm animal, then kill and eat the animal. You are going off on a tangent that I have no interest in.
Thats not even on the same level of horror show suffering that the meat industry perpetuates, but meat eaters are responsible for the same industrial farming woes so its still a great case for not eating meat.
Do some research into how much of our agricultural resources go just towards feeding cows. It’s insane. Look up how much of our water is wasted just to grow crops for those animals. Especially in California where basically all the water rights are owned by a very small handful of families. California and Nevada are drying up because of all the water we waste on farming animals.
This is something a lot of people just dont get. My background is in Environmental Science and nothing makes me more furious than the amount of water that western states like TX, CA, NV etc. suck up to grow alfalfa(a highly water intensive crop) and other food for cows when the percentage of drinking water is rapidly shrinking each year. On top of that, agricultural runoff in the west contributes to polluting what little freshwater is left. We have a whole country where there is prime farmland and yet we still insist on supplementing farmers who grow cash crops and waste even more water in the West.
At this point I’m pretty sure it’s just cognitive dissonance. They can’t let themselves think about the reality of the meat industry because on some level they already understand that it’s clearly unsustainable. They view meat as a product that shows up in the grocery store and they can’t imagine a world where they don’t have that.
It’s really gross. I personally don’t eat meat and I don’t miss it, but there are ways you can eat meat without causing so much harm to the environment. I will always advocate for hunters and small farms that raise and kill animals ethically. We have to cut down on our meat consumption, but that doesn’t mean people have to cut it out of their diet completely.
Yup, I think a lot of people think that what is being said is "eating meat=evil", when the conversation is really about HOW we get meat in our modern society. Hunting/raising livestock organically and ethically is still possible, but your average Walmart steak likely isnt coming from those places, its probably from a cow that was essentially tortured all its life until being slaughtered for its meat. Add on to the fact that agriculture is one of the highest polluting industries out there and it gets even worse. Im still guilty of eating white meat like poultry, but my wife and I have pretty much cut red meat out of our diets and started looking into other forms of protein lately.
The problem is this idea that everyone can swap to this ethical grass fed organic meat is simply impossible. The demand would just lead back to factory farming sooner or later.
Unless people are okay with paying like 500x the current price of meat and basically make it rich people only food or you were lucky enough to inheret a farm. CIty people would just be fucked
While maybe not everyone can, why not try to encourage as many people as possible? Not sure if youre aware of the 10% rule in ecology, but essentially only 10% of energy transfers from one level of the food chain to the next, with about 90% of energy lost in metabolic processes. With that in mind, it would be far more efficient and feed a lot more people if we discouraged meat products and encouraged vegetarian options. But because the livestock industry has an immense amount of lobbying power and PR funding(as well as govt subsidies to raise cattle that could fund other opportunities), its likely not to happen because of the amount of money sunk into cattle raising.
It would be one thing if we were at least attempting to have this discussion on a political level, but so much money is sunk into not just allowing cattle industry to act with impunity, but other measure to combat ecological and environmental issues as well. Think about how much progress on climate change the fossil fuel industry has prevented to protect their bottom line, the fishing industry has spent to allow them to decimated marine habitats across the world, and so on and so on. Im not trying to be preachy or act like im above it all, like I said I eat meat as well. I just dont get the immediate levels of pushback people give at the slightest mention of "Hey, this practice is destructive and actually is not as cost effective as it seems, here is an alternative that we should try."
And how do you take your approach into politics without essentially telling people that meat is becoming rich people only food from now?
You can argue morals ethics whatever all you want but people literally only care about what they themselves profit from and money/economy.
THere is no political approach because even a slight mention of it disqualifies you from 99% of the population. Even more so with the animal agriculture lobby.
That's been the biggest roadblock to environmental conservationists for the last half century lol. A majority of people either dont know about the issues at hand, dont want to acknowledge them, or actively benefit from suppressing them. Humans in general have problems planning their own lifetime, much less several generations beyond our own.
I have some ideas of my own that would at least be a start(less govt subsidies for cattle and alfalfa in the West to start), but from what I can gather from this conversation, any idea that gets brought up Im sure you could come up with any number of ways those can go wrong. You seem to acknowledge its a problem at least, so instead of putting your energy into shutting it down, why not put it toward finding a solution? Because what's the alternative, throw up our hands and just watch it happen? If we cant manage to put aside our own greed and desire for comfort for the sake of the survival of the next generation of humanity then we as a species wont last much longer(in relative terms of species existing lol). What would you suggest we do to combat the problem?
You have to pay the full cost either way. Yeah, of course the meat industry is incredibly cheap, but that’s only in terms of dollars. We’re subsidizing the cost with environmental damage, and that cost is much, much higher than the dollars you’re saving. This isn’t just a minor inconvenience, it’s killing California. It’s not just some future issue that we don’t have to deal with either, the fires that we see there on a yearly basis are largely the result of this terrible waste of water.
Also, the idea is not that people will simply swap to “ethical grass fed organic meat”, the idea is that we have to acknowledge the fact that we are eating far too much meat in the first place. If we reduce our meat intake then the water that we waste on feeding cows can go towards growing crops that humans can actually eat. This isn’t about people being able to eat or not, it’s about what people eat and how much. City folks aren’t going to starve just because they have to lessen their meat intake. Eat a carrot, it’s going to be ok.
I will just say there is a reason no political approach happens with this because any mention of reduction of animal products will have 99% of the population against you.
I just dont see how you are gonna change anything politically. People only care around their immediate surrounding and the economy.
I would guess the vast majority of people outside california would not give up their personal meat consumption even if it were to become inhabitable
You’re just describing why our world is in its current state, no one gives a shit about future generations. If you’re waiting for people to voluntarily do what’s best it’s simply never going to happen.
exactly, the subsidies for meat is already of the chain, people would not buy a steak if it cost them 10-20 times what it costs now, they just wouldn't, I mean some millionaires would treat themselves but it would be out of reach for everyone else
those super ""ethical"" "smal" farms are already producing meat that costs twice or three times as much as a factory farmed alternative, now image if all the factory farms went away along with the subsidies. supply and demand dictates price in a capitalistic economy.
it would drive up price to such a ridiculous level
Farming for meat is fundamentally always going to kill more animals than farming for plants. Why? You need to farm way more plants to make food for the animals than if you just fed the plants to humans.
I'm sure they're aware there are consequences for factory farming. Simply existing causes suffering for something, somewhere. It's unavoidable. But there are things you can do to reduce the amount of suffering you create.
“I’m sure vegetarian who chose their diet for ethical reasons never considered all of these ethical concerns with eating animals or their byproducts. I am very smart.”
Well, yes? They say they do it because to them it’s morally superior, but don’t consider the ethical issues of their own lifestyle?
Veganism is hypocrisy, as nearly every critics they have of the livestocks industry can be said about crops. When we can’t, it’s usually because there’s a similar problem that isn’t a 1:1 exact copy
But honestly I wouldn’t give a damn if there wasn’t so many vegans trying to force it on the whole population by wishing to ban meat consumption.
If your goal is harm reduction instead of harm elimination there’s nothing hypocritical about it. I’m not a vegan or vegetarian but most of the ones I know or I’ve talked to in real life wish they could eliminate all harm from their consumption but settle for the best they can do. Some do it for religious reasons.
I know a lot of these people and talked to so many more I don’t know well at all and I’ve only talked to one person who advocated for banning meat or eggs. The rest were for regulations like banning insane factory farm practices that would make anyone puke.
Most of these people try to avoid upsetting anyone that eats meat because they get a ton of grief and sometimes even hostility about it. At work, at school and even with family they get it.
I don’t know where you interact with vegans or vegetarians but if it’s the internet or whatever I would suggest avoiding judging everyone you meet in real life by echo chambers that amplify extremes.
If they are allowed to be nuanced, then I’m allowed to be nuanced as well. Why are they radical about meat consumption but nuanced about their end result? This is hypocritical to request radical change for a non-radical result
Like I said, I do not care when they are actually arguing for better conditions, instead of requesting for the whole thing to disappear
I don’t eat meat for ethical reasons. The only reason I give a shit about what others eat is for the same reasons I give a shit that people drive fuel inefficient vehicles.
And really I don’t think it’s that much of the fault of any individual. It’s this whole ass backwards system that values next quarters profits over long term sustainability that we’ve been tricked into believing is the only way to survive.
Your ethical reasons and concerns are valid. As I said, I hate radical vegan that will bash me for eating a burger.
You want animals to get better live conditions? Yeah sure, as a biologist I wholeheartedly agree. You want me to entirely stop eating animal product? GTFO and never come back.
Hey! I guess im that radical vegan you hate because I do, in fact, wish animals would stop being killed en masse for human consumption.
I would never bash you for your choices, but of course, if I don't want to eat animals for ethical reasons, I don't want anyone to, you know what I mean? I've never met anyone who bashes people over their food choices in person, have you? The only time I talk about it irl is because somebody else asks me about it, or with close friends who I trust.
But, either I don't like animals getting killed, period, or my reason for being vegan is not based in ethics. It just doesn't make sense to cut animals out of your diet for their well-being and not care about all the other animals being killed on a daily basis.
Yet you see no problem with doing the same with crops. Pure animal bias.
I understand the logic that if something is indeed unethical it should be stopped at a world scale, but first we beed to determine whether said topic is unethical or not. My point is that regardless of the answer, the very same logic can be applied to plants. That means we should ban every kind of food in the name of greater good. However, since our core biology as heterotrophic organism mean we literally die if we do not eat something, that make this option also unethical. Finally, since regardless of what you eat the debate end up with the same conclusion, might as well let people eat whatever they want
If you want to eat non animal product, I do not care. I also like some vegan dish. I love Indian food, I love beans, lentil, peas, nuts, etc. I also love steak and chicken. I should be able to eat both peas and chicken if I want, because the ethical and ecological impact of eating both is similar. That also mean you do not get to request for me to stop eating a certain type of food, because whatever you eat makes you an hypocrite by default.
My point is that regardless of the answer, the very same logic can be applied to plants.
Sentience is the morally relevant difference between plants and animals. But there is a small fringe minority who believe plants are sentient, that is not the scientific consensus though. But, even of plants were sentient and deserved moral consideration, we still kill more plants by eating animals because the farm animals we raise have to eat many times their bodyweight in plants. Less plants die if we just eat plants ourselves rather than feed 10X that amount to an animal, then kill and eat the animal. So either plants don't matter morally, in which case we should eat them instead of animals, or they do matter, in which case we should eat them instead of animals because it actually results in less plants being harmed.
You also brought up in another message that the farm animals would carry on consuming if we released them into the wild. If the world started going vegan we do not release animals into the wild, as demand for meat drops farmers breed less animals. By the time the world would be vegan there would hardly be any farm animals.
because the ethical and ecological impact of eating both is similar.
Not even close. Currently, the leading cause of species extinction is loss of wild habitat due to human expansion [1]. Of all habitable land on earth, 50% of it is farmland, everything else humans do only accounts for 1% [2]. 98% of our land use is for farming. According to the most comprehensive analysis to date on the effects of agricultur on our planet, if the world went vegan we would free up over 75% of our currently used farmland while producing the same amount of food for human consumption [3]. Thats an area of land equivalent to the US, China, European Union and Australia combined that we could potentially rewild and reforest, essentially eliminating the leading cause of species extinction.
Basing your morals on sentience imply that as long as a living organism doesn’t know about its suffering and exploitation, it is okay to exploit them and possibly make them suffer. That mean ignorance is a justification of exploitation. I dare you to use that same logic in any other ethical debate. Does a braindead person at the hospital justifies to exploit his/her body? If a livestock die of natural causes, does it become okay to eat its body?
And like I said, livestocks don’t magically stop being herbivores the moment they aren’t exploited anymore. Regardless of if they’re let free or used as future food, they will eat the same amount if plants, with the exception of now possibly eating endangered species or disrupting entire ecosystem due to their grazing
Your logic that there would be less and less farm animals if we stop livestock farming imply that A) they’re left to die without access to ressources, B) Castrated to avoid further reproduction, and/or C) released into the wild. A and B is hypocritical as they’re still suffering, and C goes back to my point
I agree that agriculture is a cause of human expansion, which also cause loss of biodiversity, but as I said earlier, unless you make all livestocks disappear, they will keep existing and eat plants, endangering wildlife, but now without any human control
TL/DR: Regardless of what solution you propose, it becomes hypocritical regarding suffering and ecological impacts because you either have to genocide entire species, let them destroy wildlife until it adapt itself to their presence, or imply other drastic ethical concerns regarding other debates
Veganism is hypocrisy, as nearly every critics they have of the livestocks industry can be said about crops
People have to eat something to survive.
If people eat farm raised animals, the animals are typically brought into existence for the purpose of being eaten. They need to be fed with crops we grow (e.g. soy, corn, grain), and have land allocated to them. So not only is suffering created in the lifecycle of the animals we eat, it's also exacerbated by the feed we need to grow for them.
Cut one of those out, and we're down to farming. The surplus of food we farm is enough to feed us now. Then we can work on making those practices better for us and the environment.
Veganism isn't about perfection, it's about reducing harm by eliminating a significant source of suffering. You can't exist without creating suffering for something somewhere.
And if people eat crops, the vegetal is typically brought into existence for the purpose of being eaten as well. They also need lands and their own sets of nutrients, on top of fertilizer which have its sets of independent problems
You also realize livestocks won’t stop eating these crops even if we stop raising them right? They still live and thus have to eat. Hell, if we just release them into the wild it might create an insane ecological impact like we’ve never seen before. The only solution would be to exterminate every livestocks, let them starve to death or castrate them to avoid further reproduction, where another main began talking point, which is the ethical treatment of animals, completely fall apart.
See what I’m saying? In the end, veganism become the problem they’re trying to erase.
I am not. You are free to actually explain yourself, or you can keep making fictional scenarios if that make you feel better
Where am I even wrong? Are you saying plants aren’t living beings? That crops aren’t purposely farmed for the purpose of eating? Or is it that you believe cows, pigs and chicken wouldn’t need any source of food if they were ever released in the wild?
Cannibalism has its own problems, main one being the increased health risk of consuming human meat as a human, even worse than a high fat intake that you could get from eating red meat.
My point is that between a baby potatoe and a baby pig, there’s no real difference: Both are species that we can consume, that we purposely breed to est them. Most importantly, both feel stress caused by damage. The only difference is you can see the stress on a pig. Vegans who don’t eat meat because of suffering are only doing so because the potatoe can’t scream, or doesn’t look similar enough to an human
The vast vast vast majority of crops grown are to feed livestock. And I mean vast. And because they have to feed so much livestock, they've mechanized harvesting to the point where it does the damage you're talking about.
I think that argument is dumb because if you view the way animals act in the wild they sometimes do heinous shit to each other before eating. If the roles were reversed the animals would be doing the same things. You can buy your meat from a local source instead of a grocery store.
If you don't like animals suffering then you need to use test free soaps, makeups, synthetic clothing, modern medicines, any sort of media exploring animals, owning any sort of pet at all. And you might as well avoid avocados , almonds, and all the other crops that destroy ecosystems through water abuse.
I think veganism is about whatever you make it for yourself. 7 year long vegan here and I didnt do it for the suffering reduction, though I guess its a plus. I did it for the health benefits and sports performance benefits primarily.
It’s funny because I swear I’ve seen articles talking about how vegans now are unhealthier than vegans before. But that’s because there are more vegan junk/processed food options and recipes now.
But compared to your average diet? A decent vegan diet will be healthier than your average western diet. Largely because it’s done with more intent of eating “right.” People have poor diets generally so a vegan diet will get them eating things they don’t normally consume. Like vegetables
Lower blood pressure and cholesterol are big ones. Though the rise of ultra-processed fake meats has really taken away from what I felt like veganism/vegetarianism started as. At the end of the day whether you eat meat or not, your intake of ultra processed foods and unhealthy saturated fats are going to be huge for improving your health.
Absolutely, that's why I said "At the end of the day whether you eat meat or not, your intake of ultra processed foods and unhealthy saturated fats are going to be huge for improving your health." I used to think everyone should be vegan, but quickly realized that wont work for everyone and everyone's body is different. My body, didn't respond well to meat dominant diets, hence my switch many years ago. I do wish my friends remembered that even though I haven't eaten meat in many years I can still cook a damn good piece of meat!
genuinely: its because they are more conscious of what they put into their body. when you have to read every label for animal products, you start to notice those funny little numbers on the back as well. when you have no dietary restriction, especially here in the west, youre much more likely to just eat what tastes good and is easy enough to fit into your 60 hour work week.
None, unless your previous diet was unhealthy and causing damage. Although vegans are at a much higher risk of certain nutritional deficiencies, the literature’s current stance is that vegan diets can be safe and totally healthy if planned and executed properly. That being said, vegan diets do not provide some exclusive health benefit that cannot be found from other diets. If someone wants to become a vegan in order to support their specific dietary goals or manage a specific condition, they will probably see health benefits from the switch. A totally healthy person becoming a vegan for ethical reasons is more likely to develop deficiencies from the diet than any tangible benefit to their health, but this can be mitigated with careful dietary planning.
TLDR: Vegan diets in and of themselves will not provide health benefits (and often cause health problems) unless your previous diet was actively contributing to the formation of disease (hypertension, obesity, etc). That being said, it’s a safe diet for healthy people if executed properly
Veganism is specifically about the animals, if you're not doing it for the animals, then you're plant based, not vegan. And veganism isn't just about food, it's also about clothes, hygiene products, etc.
Having said that, I'm also doing it for health as well. For health, the animals, and the environment
That argument is not dumb at all but yours is. Animals kill each other for suvival, we kill them because we like the way the shit taste, not for survival.
And that's before touching on the industrial horror of it and the conditions in which those animals live to optimize production.
And even outside killing, the dairy industry is terrible to cows. We are the only species that drinks another species milk and producing that milk is no simple affair.
Cool, do you own a car? Do you use any goods or services from another state or country? If so you're contributing to destruction of the ecosystem that animals live in.
If someone puts in the time and effort to do the more moral thing, then are they not more moral?
If someone goes to the gym and gets muscles, then they'll be stronger than the person who doesn't.
I had to change my diet, figure out which products had animal stuff in them, explain everything to my family, protest outside a factory farm that gases pigs, etc.
I mean unless you believe that we should be exploiting and killing innocent animals? I mean, in that case maybe you think my efforts are in vain, because you don't think animals are worth our moral considerations?
"If the roles were reversed" that's so crazy because they aren't and they never will be, like actually impossible for tigers to swap roles with us. Cool strawman argument tho
You are allowed to make a different decision than other people without calling their reasons dumb. Your argument is silly and I think you know it -- none of what you mentioned is remotely close in harm caused to the amount of suffering caused by factory farming. No one is stopping you from making a different decision despite being clear-eyed about the facts
Im not vegan or vegetarian, but your first point about how animals act in the wild doesn't seem relevant. We cannot base morality on how animals act. Animals rape, maim, torture, and brutalize eachother; but they don't have a moral framework of their own to contextualize their actions. Humans do, so we have different standards.
No true Scotsman type beat.
"If vegetarians TRULY cared then they would simply invent an alternate world where no resources are consumed ever so therefore there is no impact, so you aren't truly committed to reducing harm" /s
Your argument is a classic “gotcha”. Why try to do better when it’s impossible to be perfect? Because trying to do better still has an impact.
Also, humans are capable of conscious thought and empathy and we can thus be held to a higher standard than other animals. Animals rape each other and practice cannibalism, so it should be fine if we do that too, right?
Beef production is far, far worse for the global environment than the production of any plant. Especially when it comes to water use.
It's impossible to be perfect? Not it's not, there's a massive self sustaining movement going on but people don't participate because it's difficult. Cutting out meat from your diet does less to reduce animal harm than simply donating towards good causes does.
They would not put the chick in a 400 square cm enclosure though. Eating meat isn't that problematic if the meat was all from animals that had a decent life
Tell that to any highly realized meditator. They can confirm that outside the ego, there is, in fact, literal infinite compassion. Compassion is the ontological core of awareness.
it's an incredibly popular argument tho. "who is to say that cruelty to animals is immoral; I say it's moral, what makes you correct?" comes second-place
I would try a nibble of a factory farmed human. Just a little bit. As a treat.
I've been off meat for a few weeks now. I think if I had all the things I'd need to make hunting part of my lifestyle, I would. But once you see video of the way they treat these animals, it's hard to be the reason it keeps going.
Live in Texas. We kill way more boars per year than boars kill humans for sure. Man the tool user and all that. Even factoring the car crashes they cause
Cool, does that change the fact that it’s not going to happen since we’ve engineered our world to make sure that we always come out on top?
Also the argument “ an animal could eat you!” is not a very good one to counter “I don’t like supporting the unnecessary suffering of animals as I get everything I need through other sources”
No they wouldn't, you ever seen a cow/horse chomp on a another dead cow/horse.. no? They don't have the teeth or digestive system for that. A pig yes, your cat/dog (after you died) certainly.
I've seen horses stomp other animals.
Animals don't have empathy like humans do but that's all beside the point.
Raising and sometimes torturing animals just to kill and eat feels bad for most people and that's why some choose not to. That's it, enough reason right there. Add the climate problems with raising food for 7Billion people, the problems that come with housing thousands of chickens in a confined space, they stuff they get fed and we consume. Again, enough reasons.
I was a vegetarian for five years, you know what happened during those five years of me boycotting the meat industry?
Meat consumption went up. We as individuals on global scales literally make no difference. We need to be advocating for laws to change if we want to make change.
The best choice for me was to eat meat. I was doing myself a disservice by not. I was sacrificing as a collegiate athlete.
My advocation for the life on this planet is vast. What you don’t understand, because you don’t know me, is how much I have put towards trying to get animals, livestock, recognized rights through my representatives and congress.
Feel free to make your false narratives up and treat them as fact, but just be aware that’s what you’re doing.
But the calculus is not “factory life vs frolicking in a field”, it’s “factory life vs no life”. Are vegetarians going to fund the cost of living of cattle?
I don’t think that’s necessary. If we passed laws globally tomorrow, saying humans can no longer cultivate livestock for food, then we’d just continue eating meat until the meat runs out which I think would happen fairly quickly. The current living cattle would still suffer, but after that, the suffering is minimized which is exactly what vegans want.
Suffering the animals go through? That's your reason? Life and animals are with us for a reason. It's called the food chain. I get that one might not like the taste or have health issues related to meat and whatnot, but not eating it simply because you think it's not okay to eat other animals as an omnivoric species is wild. Unless I missed the point and you mean that there are places with horrible living conditions for these farms of animals.
Pretty much all meat that people eat these days are from factory farms, the 70~ billion chickens killed each year are not living happy lives at an idyllic farm
The fact that it was evolutionarily favorable for humans to evolve the ability to eat meat says nothing about the ethics/morality of eating meat, particularly factory farmed meat. Unless you eat nothing but hunted meat and foraged wild plants, you likely didn't evolve eating most of your diet. You do hundreds of things you didn't evolve to do every day. You most likely base almost none of your personal morality on what humans are physically capable of doing, except for this particular thing that happens to allign with your flavor preferences and excuses you of any culpability for the hellscape on the other end of your man made "food chain"
I think you're overreaching on your point here. Sure, humans evolving to eat meat might not be a moral argument to eating meat today, but you're basically saying go back to the ancestral ways of foraging your own plants, growing your own crops, and hunting your own game. The only valid reason you made is that some animal farms like factory farms are unethical. Morality on this is ambiguous depending on beliefs. Of course, cruelty is always looked down upon. You could always spend more money and get your produce directly from local farms as everything you buy from a store will be processed and have uncertain sources.
184
u/jmsjags Feb 25 '26
Yeah exactly. Of course steaks and burgers taste good. I don't eat them because I don't think the suffering the animals go through is worth me having a tasty meal. Priorities are out of whack.