There is this very strange way of thinking when it comes to animal product consumption, where our current consumption is justified under some theoretical set of scenarios where that consumption could be justified.
It doesn't seem to matter that the scenario described does not apply to the products you consume now or to your own circumstances. Just the fact that this justification could exist, even in the abstract, somehow justifies consumption in circumstances that these exceptions clearly do not apply to. So you end up having these bizarre conversations that go something like:
"Indigenous people have been hunting sustainably for thousands of years, it is okay to eat animals if they are killed painlessly and you are using every part of the animal."
"Okay but... Are you indigenous? Does the situation you describe apply to you and the animals you eat?"
"Well no but... it shows that eating animals can be justified."
"Right, but I'm talking to you... Who none of these exceptions apply to? You're eating pre-packaged, factory farmed meat from the supermarket like everyone else. So what is YOUR justification?"
And they either launch into a non-sequitur about something like imported quinoa, or they then tell you that actually, they just like meat and I shouldn't force my views on them. This sounds like a straw man but I have had hundreds of conversations exactly like this on my blog.
gummygunk
areudirty
s-u-f-j-a-n-s-t-e-v-e-n-s
2087
prguitarman
yousharknotpass
kianamaiart
snowghoul
romaincrisis
