I keep seeing this picture. I can’t help but comment on the irony of it.
Firstly: That is a dairy cow, not a beef animal.
Secondly: All of those creature pictured exist because they are meat, they are beautiful but have been bred/cultivated to enhance desirable carcass traits and are so far removed from their wild ancestors that they can hardly be recognised.
They are very beautiful but that is not a reason not to eat meat. It is however a reason to educate yourself on modern agriculture and to fuel the market for high quality high welfare meat.
Nice handwriting though.
Along the same lines: that’s a pot-bellied pig, not a meat breed.
Also, let me just say this: I get what this picture is going for. I appreciate it. But (and I say this as an omnivore-turned-vegetarian-turned-vegan-turned-vegetarian-turned-conscious-omnivore who has oscillated all over the eating spectrum) it also raises my ethical hackles a little bit. The aesthetic appeal of a living thing shouldn’t influence how well you treat it; you should treat it humanely regardless of how it looks. My ears ring every time I hear someone say, “I eat fish and chicken, but I could never eat cows and sheep because they’re so cute”* — as if your moral compass should be guided primarily by how uncomfortable you feel. Recognizing a) that the animals we raise for consumption have the capacity to suffer, b) that they are, in fact, suffering, and in staggering numbers, and that your buying habits contribute to that, and c) that you as a consumer and a thoughtful human being can minimize that suffering by choosing food from ethical sources — that’s a reason to change your eating habits.
*Frame this phrase around something else (e.g., “I buy Chinese-made Apple products manufactured under horrific working conditions, but I could never buy sweatshop-made clothes from Guatemala because Guatemalan children are so cute”) and you’ll see exactly how flimsy it is.