Seriously, do we need a long and boring thread about existentialism to understand something, (and i’m gonna have throw a figurative number I clarify it before you ask me to cite the source) 90% of the civilized world agrees is bad? I guess not, so I’m gonna explain it like you’re 5: “Don't do unto others what you don't want done unto you.” As simple as that.
As for the car, what would you say anybody can do tomorrow no matter what they do for a living or how much they earn, give up their car or change to a plant-based lifestyle?
90% of people with higher education do not understand logarithms, consider astrology and/or religion as a working thing, etc. Science remembers some cases when 99.999% of civilized world used to be wrong about something.
> Don't do unto others what you don't want done unto you.
Cattle is not "others", they are way closer to things then to people. They do not understand conception of self and death, they will not grieve seeing death of their friends or relatives, they will never write a "Romeo and Juliet". Don't you consider a potato as that kind "others"? But if you throw a potato not in a boiling water but in a wet ground it will be possible to see that potato is a living thing.
I agree when somebody is talking about climate impact or health of a diet. But when, after hours of manual labor in an unheated workshop, I go on my lunch break, I read about the suffering of animals with such loud laughter that I can't believe that anyone is talking about it seriously.
> As for the car, what would you say anybody can do tomorrow no matter what they do for a living or how much they earn, give up their car or change to a plant-based lifestyle?
The Lindy effect?
Then torturing, killing, and eating babies and mentally disabled people is OK in your book?
If you would take 5 minutes to read about animal behavior you'll understand how far off are your concepts.
>But when, after hours of manual labor in an unheated workshop, I go on my lunch break, I read about the suffering of animals with such loud laughter that I can't believe that anyone is talking about it seriously.
Is somebody else forcing you into that position?
No because it might write another "Romeo and Juliett" or prove Riemann hypothesis you know what I mean. One mentally disabled man even won a Noble for invention of the Game Theory part of Mathematics.
> Is somebody else forcing you into that position?
In my mother language there is an idiom "hunger is not an aunt".
> If you would take 5 minutes to read about animal behavior you'll understand how far off are your concepts.
Give me some proves, please.
Last but not least, I am not going to persuade you for obvious reasons.
> Please tell me it’s a sarcastic response.
I asked to give some measures of animal suffering, if you are talking about reducing animal cruelty so why so-called cruelty is bad?
> Sometimes i find hard to understand people.
I experience the same feelings when I use to propose people to get rid of their cars as I did. Positive environmental impact, better for your health, no negative side effects if your bicycle has enough big bicycle trunk, of course bicycle is way cheaper which allows you to work less and spend more time to cycling... What's wrong with all those people?