Ask yourself what a cow ever did to you and compare the two
this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2025
225 points (94.5% liked)
Asklemmy
44331 readers
995 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
If people have good tattoos, the skin the tattoo is on should be preserved at death and framed. For family to enjoy.
Didn't expect to meet Fukushi Masaichi here.
We already kill cows to eat them. Wearing their skin is just using more of their material.
Yeah exactly. People dont realize that leather is a byproduct of the meat industry. Most of the cost is in tanning and preparing it.
So trust me, there is no shortage of skin to make leather
Except it's rarely the same cows
Humans. They can consent.
From the pov of a human or a cow?
Cow leather is more moral in my pov
Or is it about sourcing it from them after their natural death?
Even then cow leather seems more moral
What do you base that on? A cow canβt consent to this.
It's Rimworld, so making hats out of guests is kind of mandatory.
That's so much leather tho
Digging graves takes time and space. Butchering gives resources. You do the math.
In Anomaly I feed them all to my Harbinger Trees for more bioferrite!
But if I had any cannibals, or my Ideoligion didn't dislike corpses so much, I would probably do things differently.
Well, the human can consent, so that would make it perfectly ethical if they do.
this site uses cookies. To continue, you must agree to the terms and conditions. By hitting agree, you agree to the following.
- blah
- blah blah
- blah
- you consent to being turned in to a hat
- blah
agree?
Blindly hits βAgreeβ.
They consented when they tried to raid me.
I'd donate my body to a Tanner. Cows can't make this choice in a we can understand at least.
Douglas Adams morally safe meat. Cows breed to be smart enough to agree to be food. To the point they will just pop off and off them selves .... But don't worry it will be in a very humane way.... And don't forget to try my rump it's very juicy...
This is from the restaurant at the end of the universe btw
"How about a salad?"
"Oh, I know a few vegetables who'd object to that, Sir!"
Why let baby foreskins go to waste is what I always say.
Why human love infant genital mutilation so much?
Itβs far from universally loved.
I'm not sure what the green is vs the red. I would assume African cultures don't support it mostly because it seems unlikely that they developed the same arbitrary (religious) surgery. That would however imply that Europe is a lot more supportive of circumcision than I would have expected. Either way I'm surprised.
What do you think are the major religions in the continent of Africa? Traditional religions take up less than 10% of religious belief. Yes, less than 10% for all of them combined
That's fair. I forgot that we colonized them a little bit less than respectfully.
Red is 90β100% circumcised. Green is 0β9%.
It's mostly majority Muslim countries in red with the exception of the Philippines, South Korea, and the US
Wow, I'm surprised at how much it skews eastwards in the US.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Assuming it's involuntary either way, cows.
There's no shortage of alternatives, though.
Well in all seriousness, humans can consent and cows can't (or if they can, they have no unambiguous way to communicate this consent to humans), so human leather is more ethical.
And when it's the only way to keep their family from starving, for example, people will consent in droves, securing supply.
It's ethical i would say, since humans are an invasive species
Jokes like this make me uncomfortable :( there's legit eco fash positions like this. Invasive species rhetoric is bad applied to all species imho, because killing children for some sort of inherited sin seems unreasonable to me.
I appreciate you calling out this kind of stuff. It seems like in this instance, OP was just joking, but I'm deeply nervous at how many people are genuinely believing and propagating eco-fascist rhetoric nowadays.
i forgot people actually think like this π
We do have to ask if Malthusians are really people...
load more comments
(1 replies)
Sourcing leather from humans is always morally correct! You will get 50% off for bringing your whole family in!
Reminds me of a time in biology class
Q: What's a resource everyone has access to?
A: ~~Water~~
Skin.
view more: next βΊ