As the saying goes, I don’t eat, exploit or sexually abuse humans either. We just rule it out across the board, while you guys don’t.
You sure do rationalize the shit out of how we’re worse than you because we have stricter/consistent moral standards though! Always some twisted bit of logic to explain that one. You wouldn’t really understand unless you’ve lived through it, but it’s a little nasty little bit of discrimination in its own right - we actually sacrifice something to try to do the right thing, and get treated like subhumans for it. Having an actual rational discussion is right out the window because god forbid you engage honestly with a “militant vegan” who’s lived through, rejected and moved past the thinking you’re still stuck on.
But you do exploit humans. The food you eat, the clothes you wear, actually pretty much everything you use was made with exploitation. The fact you can choose to go vegan and complain about it on the internet means you are incredibly privledged. As am I.
You talk about rational discussion but all I’m seeing from you is the opposite, “all meat eaters are evil”.
The world is complicated and there’s a lot of things wrong with it. You chose one problem to focus on, and that’s great. But just because other people have other things that they prioritize doesn’t mean they are bad people.
I did not choose one problem to focus on. This whole comment is a big “tu quoque” based on assumptions about me that aren’t even true. I buy local food, I get clothes from thrift stores, etc. And I made no claim about “all meat eaters are evil”, this is just the classic “take a vegan saying that eating meat is unethical and interpret it as an attack on your character”, which is another pattern I’ve had just about enough of. The question of the ethics of your diet are an objective issue one way or the other, take your pride and your identity politics and get them out of the conversation.
And veganism is not some byproduct of privilege either. Another obnoxious myth. This weird line of reasoning is mostly seen from the US where meat is heavily subsidized and people are out of touch with the actual reality of subsistence living based on farming, in which meat is a very inefficient return on your efforts in terms of calories. People never seem to reconcile claims like these with the knowledge that countries like India have some of the highest vegetarian populations on the planet.
The question of the ethics of your diet are an objective issue one way or the other
I have a problem with your choice of words
ethics
objective issue
pick one. Ethics by their very nature are subjective. Anything relating to them as a basis is therefore also subjective. There is no such thing as objective ethics. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you did not write what you meant but as written this is contradictory in itself.
Well, this is the crux of it, isn’t it. The principles you establish an ethical system with are indeed arbitrary (not exactly “subjective”) but the actual answers you derive from any such system have a remarkable way of showing that basic recognition of rights we afford to humans (FOR SOME REASON) also extend to animals. E.g., right to life, some basic degree of bodily autonomy, consideration of wellbeing, etc. Basically the only way to construct an “ethical system” that actually “justifies” animal agriculture beyond actual life or death scenarios is one that’s oriented purely around one individuals’ selfish desires (commonly called “evil”) or one that just axiomatically presupposes human supremacy. If you base it on something actually reasonable like, beings experiencing joy is an ideal and beings experiencing suffering is to be avoided (to be brief), you rapidly end up with an incongruency between what’s right and what’s happening in the world today. Even for the purely selfish case, you hit issues with health and the massively negative experience of life without the capacity for empathy. Believe me when I say I’ve gone over this with a fine tooth comb.
You don’t axiomatically presuppose human supremacy? I don’t understand how that moral position works, and I want to hear more.
In general, we empathize more with creatures that are more similar to ourselves, and creatures that are cute. Given that, human supremacy follows logically for me. Humans are top of the heirachy, followed by similar mammals, then birds, then fish, then insects. It’s sad that’s there’s a heirachy, but the alternative is considering the life of an insect equal in value to the life of a human. I think that’s a less moral position, but it would also drive you insane because we murder so many insects in our lives.
I don’t believe it’s possible to have a consistent and non-hypocrytical ethical system, and if it was that wouldn’t be desirable. Every meat eater I’ve ever met agrees that agriculture kinda sucks, but they have other priorities.
Experience, joy, suffering etc. are based in actual physical realities, neurological structure, electrical impulses, neurotransmitters, learning, etc. That’s how. It’s based on the actual demonstrable fact of animal experience.
That’s an arbitrary line too though. Insects experience some form of emotion, but it appears not as complex as a mammal. If you’re going to define value of life by (estimated)complexity of experience, then we’re both agreed on a similar heirachy with humans at the top.
My point is that there’s nuance. Everyone has their own opinion and none of us are right or wrong.
not very hard to do. All it requires is a factor that excludes almost all animals and voila. For example: only being capable of communicating abstract concepts (for example: crafting) should be afforded these rights. Since the list of animals we have observed that in is also pretty much the list of animals we don’t eat there is no moral dilemma anymore.
Granted I’m an unapologetic human supremacist so this is a biased take but concluding some sort of human supremacy in the animal kingdom is not hard given that we pretty much rule earth. There is undeniable proof that by simply being present humans influence biospheres harder than an apex predator suddenly showing up, so we have some form of elevation above other animals pretty much proven (whether that influence is “good” is another discussion). All that’s needed then is to find anything that separates humans from animals and you have your human supremacist theory. Given our rather distinct evolutionary path that is not really a difficult exercise.
Without deeper thought I agree with the rest of your statement though.
Well, choosing an arbitrary ethical system because it happens to jive with your own selfish aims, for all intents and purposes that’s basically the same as having no ethical system at all. This is why you get the analogies to things like human slavery, because the same logic was used to arbitrary exclude some from consideration (e.g., supposedly biblically-founded theories that purported to show black people were on a lower plane of existence than white people as ordained by a god). Again, we don’t even apply these sort of arbitrary criteria to humans (a person who’s in a coma with no end in sight, a person with a severe learning disability…). It’s just rolling the dice and creating some arbitrarily high criteria for deciding animals don’t deserve rights.
take your pride and your identity politics and get them out of the conversation.
we actually sacrifice something to try to do the right thing, and get treated like subhumans for it. Having an actual rational discussion is right out the window
As the saying goes, I don’t eat, exploit or sexually abuse humans either
First off, feel free to open with any scientific evidence that cows suffer the emotional trauma of sexual abuse from farming. Because the thing is, we have thousands of years of evidence and that doesn’t seem to be the correct conclusion. No, calling cattle insemination sexual abuse is a malicious lie.
You sure do rationalize the shit out of how we’re worse than you because we have stricter/consistent moral standards though!
This. Right. fucking. here. You are telling me that my moral system is less than dirt. That I am inferior to you. You don’t talk about it with any genuine respect. If I won’t “sexually abuse” my ethics, I’m dirt underneath your feet. You didn’t argue the points here, because I’m beneath you. Less than you. Let me guess, some of that human-hating-vegan propaganda where I either haven’t thought about it, or I’ve taken a removedation shotgun to my head because I “loooooooove” the taste of meat? Because I can’t just think YOU’RE wrong. No, I can’t do that. Because I’m too stupid to. Right?
You wouldn’t really understand unless you’ve lived through it, but it’s a little nasty little bit of discrimination in its own right
I’m a member of a fringe religion that my country tried to ban, so fuck “little nasty bit of discrimination”. YOU DON’T GET TO CALL YOURSELF A VICTIM OF DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE I DON’T LIKE YOU BELITTLING ME. That’s not how discrimination works. You sound like the Religious Right who think they are victims every time they don’t get to ban Mosques or gay marriage.
and get treated like subhumans for it
I don’t think you’re a subhuman. I think you’re a zealot. HUGE fucking difference. It’s not discrimination when you judge someone’s actions. I don’t call your horrible behavior “discriminatory” because you’re disagreeing with what I do and not who I am. The judgement is mutual. You don’t get to call it discriminatory because I won’t bend over for you and your bullshit pseudoscience.
Having an actual rational discussion is right out the window
You mean by calling the dairy and cattle industry “sexual abuse”? You start being the least bit rational, and then you can MAYBE try to judge the kettle. Let me point out that I was agreeing with somebody about treating cows and women the same being misogynistic, and you just fucking went off on me. Because agreeing that bullshit is bullshit is somehow “irrational” and attacking non-vegans for not accepting that bullshit is “irrational”. No. YOU are irrational.
because god forbid you engage honestly with a “militant vegan” who’s lived through, rejected and moved past the thinking you’re still stuck on.
Actually I was engaging with a decent human being I agreed with, and a militant vegan decided to approach me with a persecution complex. So in this thread, why should I care what you’ve lived through? Do you approve of being approach on the street by strangers and judged?
And I’ve “lived through, rejected, and moved past” your thinking, too. I used to be an active member of a religion that has strong roots in both philosophical veganism and in philosophical omnivorism. Circle of live vs All life is sacred sects. You might not realize it, but a lot of people with a lot more understanding of ethics and a lot more philosophical background than you have spent a lot more time thinking about veganism than you have. And I lived through it, rejected it, and came out the other side.
Don’t bother replying. I don’t wait for a reply on the subway either.
First off, feel free to open with any scientific evidence that cows suffer the emotional trauma of sexual abuse from farming. Because the thing is, we have thousands of years of evidence and that doesn’t seem to be the correct conclusion. No, calling cattle insemination sexual abuse is a malicious lie.
Rambling article that fails to prove its central point. Points out that cows identify humans as “the predator” but for some reason think this doesn’t factor into a negative experience for human arms being jammed inside them? I don’t know why people feel so compelled to defend this. It’s sexual in nature and they don’t like it, end of story.
This. Right. fucking. here. You are telling me that my moral system is less than dirt. That I am inferior to you.
This whole paragraph is literally the rationalization process. You internalize that somebody pointing out an ethical issue is attacking you personally, and from there launch into a whole thing about what a zealot absolute-fucking-asshole they must be for pointing it out, how they must think you’re stupid, how dare they, blah blah blah. I am literally just talking about how a practice is unethical and the negative experiences (like this) I’ve had discussing it with people, where people flare up into an emotional shitstorm instead of talking about it calmly and rationally. You’re doing it right now.
I’m a member of a fringe religion that my country tried to ban, so fuck “little nasty bit of discrimination”. YOU DON’T GET TO CALL YOURSELF A VICTIM OF DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE I DON’T LIKE YOU BELITTLING ME.
I don’t think you’re a subhuman. I think you’re a zealot.
It is discrimination. We take an ethical position and this is generalized as a stereotype to some kind of critical fault in our personalities - incorrectly. That worse forms of discrimination exist, or that you’ve experienced them, doesn’t change that. You seem absolutely callous to my actual 10+ years of experience with this.
Ironically the “zealots” were a Jewish sect that objected to the unethicalness of Roman rule and were trying to throw it off, justifying resistance within the context of their religion.
And I’ve “lived through, rejected, and moved past” your thinking, too. I used to be an active member of a religion that has strong roots in both philosophical veganism and in philosophical omnivorism. Circle of live vs All life is sacred sects. You might not realize it, but a lot of people with a lot more understanding of ethics and a lot more philosophical background than you have spent a lot more time thinking about veganism than you have. And I lived through it, rejected it, and came out the other side.
Now you’re belittling me, ironically. And what was the actual thinking that led you to “come out the other side”? At some point here are you trying to get past all the identity politics and being offended over whatever to actually talk about brass tacks here? What is the grand scientific/philosophical reasoning you used to decide that it’s A-OK to use & abuse animals for human gain?
If you’re referring to Buddhism, I would note how Buddha’s reasoning for when eating meat is excusable does not apply to animal agriculture at all (the reasoning that, if the animal wasn’t killed for you, it’s OK - which fails the basic litmus test of how supply-and-demand works for when people actually go out and buy meat).
Rambling article that fails to prove its central point
Glad you concede.
This whole paragraph is literally the rationalization process
Thanks for admitting to what you were about to do. I agree, you are doing nothing but rationalizing in that paragraph.
It is discrimination. We take an ethical position and this is generalized as a stereotype to some kind of critical fault in our personalities - incorrectly
Please admit that the above quote, too, is rationalization.
Ironically the “zealots” were a Jewish sect that objected to the unethicalness of Roman rule and were trying to throw it off
You are doing one of three things. Either you do not know what people tend to mean by “zealot” (at which point, look it up), or you are trying to change a topic you know you are losing on, or you are arguing in bad faith. Please let me know which.
Now you’re belittling me, ironically
Not really. I am telling you that you’re not the only (or most) educated and prepared person in the vegan/meat discussion. Unless we take “vegans are axiomatically right”, you have a fairly massive burden of proof if you want to continue being offended by the idea that a non-vegan can have a 3-digit IQ.
Litmus test I’ve found over the years on internet discussion - when you try to right the ship to actually talk about the concrete issue, and the other person keeps trying to turn it into personal me-vs-you and who’s-better-than-who - they’re operating in bad faith. “I am rubber, you are glue” replies just destroy any attempt people are having for a real discussion.
Not really. I am telling you that you’re not the only (or most) educated and prepared person in the vegan/meat discussion. Unless we take “vegans are axiomatically right”, you have a fairly massive burden of proof if you want to continue being offended by the idea that a non-vegan can have a 3-digit IQ.
Discuss the actual topic, like I just asked you to. What is the reasoning that’s superior to vegan reasoning?
Thanks for the apology. Forgiven. Now onto the topic. I understand how emotional vegans can get on these issues.
What is the reasoning that’s superior to vegan reasoning?
Sticking with ethics, a few bullet points.
“Nulla poena sine lege”… “Everything which is not forbidden is allowed”. A legal (and ethical) maxim. Lacking compelling reason to accept vegan reasoning, it is not forbidden to eat meat.
Every ethical system has at least one argument that supports meat-eating (some more absolute than others, like Natural Law Ethics). Joined with bullet point 1, there is no foundation worthy of continuing the discussion. A strong argument for veganism alongside a strong argument against veganism boils down to “Everything which is not forbidden is allowed”, so long as one pro-meat argument remains. Pick any ethical system if you want to dig in deeper, but I tend towards Utilitarianism.
Similar to the above, life is suffering. The animals I eat live better lives than most humans, and would live WORSE lives or NO lives if they were not being eaten. (See Sir Karl Popper below)
There is my ethical reasoning that is superior to vegan reasoning. If you’re interested in someone with better foundations than even me, look up Sir Karl Popper’s position on this matter (the philosopher of the “Paradox of Tolerance” fame). He holds to Negative Utilitarianism, and disagrees with veganism being a utilitarian virtue. It was largely in response to (and/or is used in response to) Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation, a Utilitarian argument for veganism I strongly disagree with.
Therefore, “Everything which is not forbidden is allowed”
Check out Karl Popper’s arguments. I’d link you, but I’m having a hell of a time finding them (which sucks because he was one of my view’s larger influences).
For my points, it’s simply that through any analysis, farming animals is more net utility than not. I actually hold to it by positive Utilitarianism as well as Negative.
First is the utility of people consuming them (if there wasn’t any, everyone would just drop meat-eating in a heartbeat). There is undeniably utility in consuming meat/dairy. In a vacuum, this isn’t everything. Obviously there’s utility in a starving person committing cannibalism. In a counter-vacuum, it’s still not-nothing, since there is arguably negative utility in a plant being eaten (just not much).
Second is the utility in domesticated animals. The alternatives are wild animals or anti-natalism. For the former, there is no question that even the worst case “veal cow with botched slaughter” is better than the best case of wild animals (life of constant starvation and fear, ended slowly and incredibly painfully). As for anti-natalism… I hold with Karl Popper. To exist and feel pain is better than not to exist. Farm animls have plenty of positive-utility moments.
Third is the Utility Monster scenario. HUMANS are Utility Monsters, as compared to animals. This is not to be confused with human exceptionalism. Cows are not planning what to name their grandchildren, waiting for Christmas Dinner. They’re not excited for a delicious meal, slow roasted for 12 hours. The truth is, there is more Utility to 1000 families eating a hamburger or a steak filet than a slaughtered cow living 1 more year, even 10 more years. If one argues we are of equal utility to animals, then I do not see justification that any being should have less utility than any other. And that includes insects and, yes, plants. Either qualities of a species affect utility or they do not. One cannot have their cake and eat it.
So to sum it up… There is no disagreement that agriculture creates net positive utility for humans, right? Well, I have shown that agriculture also creates net positive utility to animals. Disagree or not, even if you could somehow poke holes in some of those points, there is an avalanche of Reason to the idea that a non-vegan world is simply better than a vegan world.
As the saying goes, I don’t eat, exploit or sexually abuse humans either. We just rule it out across the board, while you guys don’t.
You sure do rationalize the shit out of how we’re worse than you because we have stricter/consistent moral standards though! Always some twisted bit of logic to explain that one. You wouldn’t really understand unless you’ve lived through it, but it’s a little nasty little bit of discrimination in its own right - we actually sacrifice something to try to do the right thing, and get treated like subhumans for it. Having an actual rational discussion is right out the window because god forbid you engage honestly with a “militant vegan” who’s lived through, rejected and moved past the thinking you’re still stuck on.
But you do exploit humans. The food you eat, the clothes you wear, actually pretty much everything you use was made with exploitation. The fact you can choose to go vegan and complain about it on the internet means you are incredibly privledged. As am I.
You talk about rational discussion but all I’m seeing from you is the opposite, “all meat eaters are evil”.
The world is complicated and there’s a lot of things wrong with it. You chose one problem to focus on, and that’s great. But just because other people have other things that they prioritize doesn’t mean they are bad people.
I did not choose one problem to focus on. This whole comment is a big “tu quoque” based on assumptions about me that aren’t even true. I buy local food, I get clothes from thrift stores, etc. And I made no claim about “all meat eaters are evil”, this is just the classic “take a vegan saying that eating meat is unethical and interpret it as an attack on your character”, which is another pattern I’ve had just about enough of. The question of the ethics of your diet are an objective issue one way or the other, take your pride and your identity politics and get them out of the conversation.
And veganism is not some byproduct of privilege either. Another obnoxious myth. This weird line of reasoning is mostly seen from the US where meat is heavily subsidized and people are out of touch with the actual reality of subsistence living based on farming, in which meat is a very inefficient return on your efforts in terms of calories. People never seem to reconcile claims like these with the knowledge that countries like India have some of the highest vegetarian populations on the planet.
I have a problem with your choice of words
pick one. Ethics by their very nature are subjective. Anything relating to them as a basis is therefore also subjective. There is no such thing as objective ethics. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you did not write what you meant but as written this is contradictory in itself.
Well, this is the crux of it, isn’t it. The principles you establish an ethical system with are indeed arbitrary (not exactly “subjective”) but the actual answers you derive from any such system have a remarkable way of showing that basic recognition of rights we afford to humans (FOR SOME REASON) also extend to animals. E.g., right to life, some basic degree of bodily autonomy, consideration of wellbeing, etc. Basically the only way to construct an “ethical system” that actually “justifies” animal agriculture beyond actual life or death scenarios is one that’s oriented purely around one individuals’ selfish desires (commonly called “evil”) or one that just axiomatically presupposes human supremacy. If you base it on something actually reasonable like, beings experiencing joy is an ideal and beings experiencing suffering is to be avoided (to be brief), you rapidly end up with an incongruency between what’s right and what’s happening in the world today. Even for the purely selfish case, you hit issues with health and the massively negative experience of life without the capacity for empathy. Believe me when I say I’ve gone over this with a fine tooth comb.
You don’t axiomatically presuppose human supremacy? I don’t understand how that moral position works, and I want to hear more.
In general, we empathize more with creatures that are more similar to ourselves, and creatures that are cute. Given that, human supremacy follows logically for me. Humans are top of the heirachy, followed by similar mammals, then birds, then fish, then insects. It’s sad that’s there’s a heirachy, but the alternative is considering the life of an insect equal in value to the life of a human. I think that’s a less moral position, but it would also drive you insane because we murder so many insects in our lives.
I don’t believe it’s possible to have a consistent and non-hypocrytical ethical system, and if it was that wouldn’t be desirable. Every meat eater I’ve ever met agrees that agriculture kinda sucks, but they have other priorities.
Experience, joy, suffering etc. are based in actual physical realities, neurological structure, electrical impulses, neurotransmitters, learning, etc. That’s how. It’s based on the actual demonstrable fact of animal experience.
That’s an arbitrary line too though. Insects experience some form of emotion, but it appears not as complex as a mammal. If you’re going to define value of life by (estimated)complexity of experience, then we’re both agreed on a similar heirachy with humans at the top.
My point is that there’s nuance. Everyone has their own opinion and none of us are right or wrong.
not very hard to do. All it requires is a factor that excludes almost all animals and voila. For example: only being capable of communicating abstract concepts (for example: crafting) should be afforded these rights. Since the list of animals we have observed that in is also pretty much the list of animals we don’t eat there is no moral dilemma anymore.
Granted I’m an unapologetic human supremacist so this is a biased take but concluding some sort of human supremacy in the animal kingdom is not hard given that we pretty much rule earth. There is undeniable proof that by simply being present humans influence biospheres harder than an apex predator suddenly showing up, so we have some form of elevation above other animals pretty much proven (whether that influence is “good” is another discussion). All that’s needed then is to find anything that separates humans from animals and you have your human supremacist theory. Given our rather distinct evolutionary path that is not really a difficult exercise.
Without deeper thought I agree with the rest of your statement though.
Well, choosing an arbitrary ethical system because it happens to jive with your own selfish aims, for all intents and purposes that’s basically the same as having no ethical system at all. This is why you get the analogies to things like human slavery, because the same logic was used to arbitrary exclude some from consideration (e.g., supposedly biblically-founded theories that purported to show black people were on a lower plane of existence than white people as ordained by a god). Again, we don’t even apply these sort of arbitrary criteria to humans (a person who’s in a coma with no end in sight, a person with a severe learning disability…). It’s just rolling the dice and creating some arbitrarily high criteria for deciding animals don’t deserve rights.
comparing people with learning disabilities to animals is gross and you should feel bad.
That’s it, you’re blocked.
it might be a tu quoque if it weren’t for the fact that you set yourself up as the standard, and you’re standing on a lie.
pick one?
no one is sexually abusing animals, either, and you most certainly do exploit other people.
someone who understands your arguments and doesnt fall for them.
First off, feel free to open with any scientific evidence that cows suffer the emotional trauma of sexual abuse from farming. Because the thing is, we have thousands of years of evidence and that doesn’t seem to be the correct conclusion. No, calling cattle insemination sexual abuse is a malicious lie.
This. Right. fucking. here. You are telling me that my moral system is less than dirt. That I am inferior to you. You don’t talk about it with any genuine respect. If I won’t “sexually abuse” my ethics, I’m dirt underneath your feet. You didn’t argue the points here, because I’m beneath you. Less than you. Let me guess, some of that human-hating-vegan propaganda where I either haven’t thought about it, or I’ve taken a removedation shotgun to my head because I “loooooooove” the taste of meat? Because I can’t just think YOU’RE wrong. No, I can’t do that. Because I’m too stupid to. Right?
I’m a member of a fringe religion that my country tried to ban, so fuck “little nasty bit of discrimination”. YOU DON’T GET TO CALL YOURSELF A VICTIM OF DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE I DON’T LIKE YOU BELITTLING ME. That’s not how discrimination works. You sound like the Religious Right who think they are victims every time they don’t get to ban Mosques or gay marriage.
I don’t think you’re a subhuman. I think you’re a zealot. HUGE fucking difference. It’s not discrimination when you judge someone’s actions. I don’t call your horrible behavior “discriminatory” because you’re disagreeing with what I do and not who I am. The judgement is mutual. You don’t get to call it discriminatory because I won’t bend over for you and your bullshit pseudoscience.
You mean by calling the dairy and cattle industry “sexual abuse”? You start being the least bit rational, and then you can MAYBE try to judge the kettle. Let me point out that I was agreeing with somebody about treating cows and women the same being misogynistic, and you just fucking went off on me. Because agreeing that bullshit is bullshit is somehow “irrational” and attacking non-vegans for not accepting that bullshit is “irrational”. No. YOU are irrational.
Actually I was engaging with a decent human being I agreed with, and a militant vegan decided to approach me with a persecution complex. So in this thread, why should I care what you’ve lived through? Do you approve of being approach on the street by strangers and judged?
And I’ve “lived through, rejected, and moved past” your thinking, too. I used to be an active member of a religion that has strong roots in both philosophical veganism and in philosophical omnivorism. Circle of live vs All life is sacred sects. You might not realize it, but a lot of people with a lot more understanding of ethics and a lot more philosophical background than you have spent a lot more time thinking about veganism than you have. And I lived through it, rejected it, and came out the other side.
Don’t bother replying. I don’t wait for a reply on the subway either.
Rambling article that fails to prove its central point. Points out that cows identify humans as “the predator” but for some reason think this doesn’t factor into a negative experience for human arms being jammed inside them? I don’t know why people feel so compelled to defend this. It’s sexual in nature and they don’t like it, end of story.
This whole paragraph is literally the rationalization process. You internalize that somebody pointing out an ethical issue is attacking you personally, and from there launch into a whole thing about what a zealot absolute-fucking-asshole they must be for pointing it out, how they must think you’re stupid, how dare they, blah blah blah. I am literally just talking about how a practice is unethical and the negative experiences (like this) I’ve had discussing it with people, where people flare up into an emotional shitstorm instead of talking about it calmly and rationally. You’re doing it right now.
It is discrimination. We take an ethical position and this is generalized as a stereotype to some kind of critical fault in our personalities - incorrectly. That worse forms of discrimination exist, or that you’ve experienced them, doesn’t change that. You seem absolutely callous to my actual 10+ years of experience with this.
Ironically the “zealots” were a Jewish sect that objected to the unethicalness of Roman rule and were trying to throw it off, justifying resistance within the context of their religion.
Now you’re belittling me, ironically. And what was the actual thinking that led you to “come out the other side”? At some point here are you trying to get past all the identity politics and being offended over whatever to actually talk about brass tacks here? What is the grand scientific/philosophical reasoning you used to decide that it’s A-OK to use & abuse animals for human gain?
If you’re referring to Buddhism, I would note how Buddha’s reasoning for when eating meat is excusable does not apply to animal agriculture at all (the reasoning that, if the animal wasn’t killed for you, it’s OK - which fails the basic litmus test of how supply-and-demand works for when people actually go out and buy meat).
you are attacking them personally.
i don’t think you’ve ever asked buddha about it.
it’s not about your ethical position, it’s about your personality faults.
lol. from the user who feels the need to announce a block because they don’t like when i tell them they’re wrong.
no one said abuse is ok.
Glad you concede.
Thanks for admitting to what you were about to do. I agree, you are doing nothing but rationalizing in that paragraph.
Please admit that the above quote, too, is rationalization.
You are doing one of three things. Either you do not know what people tend to mean by “zealot” (at which point, look it up), or you are trying to change a topic you know you are losing on, or you are arguing in bad faith. Please let me know which.
Not really. I am telling you that you’re not the only (or most) educated and prepared person in the vegan/meat discussion. Unless we take “vegans are axiomatically right”, you have a fairly massive burden of proof if you want to continue being offended by the idea that a non-vegan can have a 3-digit IQ.
Thanks for the discussion. Don’t reply.
This is just obnoxious.
Litmus test I’ve found over the years on internet discussion - when you try to right the ship to actually talk about the concrete issue, and the other person keeps trying to turn it into personal me-vs-you and who’s-better-than-who - they’re operating in bad faith. “I am rubber, you are glue” replies just destroy any attempt people are having for a real discussion.
Discuss the actual topic, like I just asked you to. What is the reasoning that’s superior to vegan reasoning?
Thanks for the apology. Forgiven. Now onto the topic. I understand how emotional vegans can get on these issues.
Sticking with ethics, a few bullet points.
There is my ethical reasoning that is superior to vegan reasoning. If you’re interested in someone with better foundations than even me, look up Sir Karl Popper’s position on this matter (the philosopher of the “Paradox of Tolerance” fame). He holds to Negative Utilitarianism, and disagrees with veganism being a utilitarian virtue. It was largely in response to (and/or is used in response to) Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation, a Utilitarian argument for veganism I strongly disagree with.
Therefore, “Everything which is not forbidden is allowed”
Mmn, so negative utilitarianism, the stance that people should minimize suffering. And for some reason this does not apply to animals? What reason?
Check out Karl Popper’s arguments. I’d link you, but I’m having a hell of a time finding them (which sucks because he was one of my view’s larger influences).
For my points, it’s simply that through any analysis, farming animals is more net utility than not. I actually hold to it by positive Utilitarianism as well as Negative.
First is the utility of people consuming them (if there wasn’t any, everyone would just drop meat-eating in a heartbeat). There is undeniably utility in consuming meat/dairy. In a vacuum, this isn’t everything. Obviously there’s utility in a starving person committing cannibalism. In a counter-vacuum, it’s still not-nothing, since there is arguably negative utility in a plant being eaten (just not much).
Second is the utility in domesticated animals. The alternatives are wild animals or anti-natalism. For the former, there is no question that even the worst case “veal cow with botched slaughter” is better than the best case of wild animals (life of constant starvation and fear, ended slowly and incredibly painfully). As for anti-natalism… I hold with Karl Popper. To exist and feel pain is better than not to exist. Farm animls have plenty of positive-utility moments.
Third is the Utility Monster scenario. HUMANS are Utility Monsters, as compared to animals. This is not to be confused with human exceptionalism. Cows are not planning what to name their grandchildren, waiting for Christmas Dinner. They’re not excited for a delicious meal, slow roasted for 12 hours. The truth is, there is more Utility to 1000 families eating a hamburger or a steak filet than a slaughtered cow living 1 more year, even 10 more years. If one argues we are of equal utility to animals, then I do not see justification that any being should have less utility than any other. And that includes insects and, yes, plants. Either qualities of a species affect utility or they do not. One cannot have their cake and eat it.
So to sum it up… There is no disagreement that agriculture creates net positive utility for humans, right? Well, I have shown that agriculture also creates net positive utility to animals. Disagree or not, even if you could somehow poke holes in some of those points, there is an avalanche of Reason to the idea that a non-vegan world is simply better than a vegan world.
bravo
Removed by mod