What's a controversial issue on which the average person who disagrees with you has better moral character than the average person who agrees with you?

People who disagree with me on animal rights, like traditional farmers or hunters often show strong moral character through their deep care for nature and tradition. Meanwhile, some who agree with me may do so for shallow reasons. Moral disagreement doesn’t always mean bad character.

Active Farcaster user with a talent for driving engagement and moderating with intention.
Open to mod, comms, or support roles across crypto-native projects.

imo people who hunt for subsistence score much higher on animal rights than people who eat factory farmed food

Would *you* rather:

(i) live 50% of your natural life, then suddenly drop dead
(ii) live a 50%-long life in a tiny cage where you get force fed lots of fat all day, then drop dead in a more horrific way

I‘m only going to apply moral equality of what I prefer to people, animals, things who I deeply value in my life. I‘m not expanding it to everyone or anything because I cannot compute this and because it frankly makes no sense.

True, not everything needs to follow human morals strictly nature has its own rules.

But if we’re the ones making the choices, especially with power over other lives, it makes sense to think deeper. Not to judge, but just to stay conscious of what we’re part of.

I don‘t think it‘s useful to expand your human morals to everything and everyone equally

… whatever way people have of reducing the suffering of animals is good.  (Especially the larger, social animals). 

It could be opting out completely and being vegetarian/vegan, or drastically reducing or eliminating red meat, or only getting meat from smaller, local farms… or like mentioned in this comment thread, hunting your own meat.

oh sorry, just did a fact check on the person’s comment that I quoted, and there are some inaccuracies.  

corrected version below: 

“When The Jungle dropped in 1906, it exposed the filthy reality of industrial meatpacking — and people were horrified. But instead of going vegetarian, most folks demanded cleaner meat, and the government responded with safety laws.

Sounds good, right? But those laws ended up making it really hard for small farmers to sell their own meat — especially across state lines. Over time, the system started favoring big meat corporations, not local producers.

Now, more people are waking up to this. The food freedom movement is growing — advocating for local meat, small farms, and more choice. 🐓🌱

Regulations meant to protect us? Some still do. But others? They mostly protect the big guys. Time to rethink the system.” 

(chatgpt fact check)

“Interesting history moment:

When The Jungle was published, consumers abandoned commercial meat en masse out of righteous disgust. They didn’t become vegetarians, though; they turned to their local farmers, who they trusted and knew were raising and killing animals more humanely. 

In response to this, big meat got the government to pass a bunch of laws making it impossible to sell farm-slaughtered meat. It’s still extremely difficult to this day. 

We have regulatory capture to thank for the way things are. I’m glad to see things are changing thanks to the growing food freedom movement and distrust in government.” (@reltbracco on Nostr)

I think large scale slaughterhouses and the huge ass farms that supply them are horrific, cruel, unhealthy for the workers and the people eating the food.  And obviously for the cows and pigs who in better circumstances are social enough to be pets.

That’s a powerful frame.
Honestly, (i) sounds like mercy compared to (ii).

Factory farming disconnects people from the reality of what they're consuming, while subsistence hunters often have a deeper respect for the animal and the process.

What we eat shows what we know and what we stand for.