• UndergroundGoblin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    24 hours ago

    If it’s dead, it’s dead. Whether you eat it or not, it won’t change anything. The purchase kills the animal, not the consumption.

    It only makes an ecological difference if you convert the generated calories into energy.

    • sauerkrautsaul@lemmus.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      17 hours ago

      hm. Id see it differently. kill animal -> eat animal 👌

      kill animal -> let its body rot in the refrigerator while my hungover ass orders thai food is the closest I get to calling something a sin. its a crime against ecology imo.

      I get what youre saying though, I just definitely see it through a different lens

    • LH0ezVT@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      24 hours ago

      Sure, but let’s assume you want to eat x grams of animal products a week. You could either buy them and eat them, or buy them, have them expire, and then you have to re-buy them. The second one clearly sucks more.

    • hans@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      18 hours ago

      The purchase kills the animal, not the consumption.

      the animal is usually dead before someone walks into the grocery store