Another step for animals rights!

  • deegeese
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    67
    ·
    1 year ago

    LOL, animals have no rights. OK, maybe the right to be tasty.

    • bamboo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Apple claimed this was for environmental reasons, not animal rights reasons.

      • deegeese
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s more enshittification. Making it cheaper and worse and telling everyone it’s an upgrade.

        OP is editorializing that it’s for vegan ethics.

          • alp@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Leather lasts a lot longer and personally I think it feels better. But the fake leathers often fall apart really quickly and can’t be cared for like leather. A maintained leather item can last centuries, not that an accessory would last very long but faux leather crumbles pretty quickly

      • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m curious how many animals are killed to make leather. I would think that the animal is killed for food and the byproduct is leather. If we’re still raising feed cattle and just wasting the leather, wouldn’t that be worse for the environment?

          • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’re tight, but I couldn’t think of a better term for it. I suspect leather is made with material that is generated not for leather making but as a consequence of the meat industry. And since when is “using the whole animal” a bad thing? Unless I’m wrong and there are animals killed specifically for their leather, that would be pretty fucked up.

        • alp@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Right, when we make things out of wood sure it’s killing trees, but it’s a sustainable resource that is better than mining for other materials that don’t biodegrade. Of course in leathers case it is literally a byproduct so there is very little environmental concers. Garentee faux leather is much more environmentally unfriendly

          • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Like almost everything, this announcement sounds more like green washing.

            For your wood example, wood is actually a great green resource. It’s not like they’re cutting down the old growth trees anymore. They selectively cut and they have tree farms. Trees are also not as good of a carbon sync as people tend to think they are. Yes, they absorb carbon over their lifetime, but when they die, they rot and release it back into the atmosphere. The carbon we’re worried about is the stuff that came out of the ground that was there for millions of years, which is far longer than a tree lifespan.

    • FoundTheVegan@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      “Yes I am causing pain and suffering ring but lol idc” is a totally normal thing to say.

      Can you name another place where it’s ethical to willingly cause harm to another?

      • deegeese
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Animals aren’t people and have no rights.

        • FoundTheVegan@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Sure, but no one is saying they do. Pigs don’t deserve the right to vote and cows don’t deserve the right to a public education.

          But I am asking why its okay to harm them? If you cut them, they bleed, scream, flee, possibly attack in retaliation. All the same responses humans have. It’s reasonable to assume animals feel pain similar to humans.

          Is the only reason you don’t harm other humans is because the government says those other people have rights? Or is there perhaps an ethical reason in which why that would be wrong?

          What situations exactly are okay to cause pain in another for your own pleasure?

          • deegeese
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            Another step for animals rights!

            —OP

            Sure, but no one is saying they do.

            Animal rights do not exist.

            • FoundTheVegan@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Kinda weird that you are only saying the same thing over and over whole ignoring questions. But allright, you do you.

            • BEZORP@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Human rights don’t exist either. These are legal and philosophical concepts that we decide on, not fundamental constants.

          • deegeese
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            There are many victimless “crimes against society”

        • Guntrigger@feddit.ch
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I would say it’s a safe guess they are not, as it’s pretty obvious they were asking you because you said “animals have no rights”. Which implies that you are okay with it and you also decided not to refute it.

          I’m not convinced you even believe anything you type though, as your comments all scream “troll child”.