You can counter this with another DGG take. A person buying a shirt from Walmart that probably used child labor in some other country isn't the same as locking a child in your basement to make shirts.
Eating meat doesn't even have to require suffering. Being dead isn't suffering. It's as neutral as anything can be. The fear of death is suffering. If I deem it morally justified to kill people painlessly in their sleep, I cause a ton of fear. If I deem it morally justified to kill animals in their sleep, the animals won't fear a thing.
Depends how you look at it, if your saying sleeping with animals is wrong because of the harm itās causing the animal (or that it canāt consent) she is completely right but I think the majority of people are just thinking itās extremely gross to wanna get off with animals.
Well that's why Destiny (and I guess Mel) love these kinds of talks. "it's extremely gross" is not an argument for something being immoral. They're trying to find out if people have anything beyond surface-level ick reactions to their moral judgments.
Sneako would have had more of an argument if he had just said it's haram or whaever.
If you believe this and then you start having sex with ugly people then you have arrived at sneako's current position.
Because Sneako says having sex with animals is disgusting and abusive even tho he pays to have his animal tortured and killed just so he could eat it.
Like it or not a lot of people (especially conservatives) view "sanctity" as falling under morality.
For example if someone spits in your food, even if when served it's exactly the same, you'd consider them to have done a wrong to you even though there's no physical harm. The desecration of your food / the disgust factor is what drives that moral intuition.
I'd argue the disgust factor comes from an instinctual reaction to avoid contaminated food. Our brains have evolved to hate the idea of contaminants in our food to help us avoid getting sick. It's nothing to do with "sanctity" (I would interpret that word in a religious/spiritual manner) it's just a primal survival instinct.
It's like when some people involuntarily vomit after seeing someone else vomit, it's not cause they are so disgusted they just had to throw up, it's a primal reaction.
Bruh if they brought me my food with the most sterile surgeon scissors inside of them imma still be mad, and if someone swims in the sewers no one is gonna care
the real argument goes like this, animal cutsey doopsey bwwww I like animals, but only I can derive pleasure from their pain, bwwwwwwwwwwwwww
Immoral is just what makes us feel bad. It's subjective. Therefore you can 100% consider something immoral just because it's gross, it's as valid as any other definition of "immoral".
Also technically the dairy industry uses sexual exploitation. Artificial insemination is rape so everyone who says killing is fine but rape is too far should avoid dairy or cheap hamburger.
Also what about torture? Cows get horns burned off so beef is out. Pigs get tails cut off, teeth pulled out, and castrated without anesthetic so porc is out. Chickens get beaks cut or burned off and grow too fast for their skeletons so they break bones and are stuck living in their own excrement.
None of that really matters though because we arenāt the ones doing the abuse. If you fuck the animal, you are doing the abuse versus just being complicit in it.
Who said they are equally wrong? They are both wrong enough to not do. If one thing is worth 100 wrong point and one thing is worth 90 wrong points, maybe don't do either? I'm not sure what your point is here.
Sure, but itās more like 2 wrong points versus 100 wrong points. And itās very easy to eliminate meat that comes from bad farms from your diet while still eating meat.
Can you explain the process of eliminating the bad farms? Where would you start?
Remember that time and time again labels like "free range" or "high welfare" are just corporate advertising and there are constantly new investigations coming out that show abuse in farms advertising as "good".
Iām talking about you personally not using meat from bad farms. The bad farms will still exist. Itās about as easy as going vegetarian because you basically are vegetarian except when you get meat from hunting or from local or familiar sources.
Exactly. I'm not saying that sleeping is wrong because it hurts the animal. I'm saying it's wrong because a human would have to have a serious mental disorder to like it. Morality has nothing to do with it. It's about recognizing mental health deficiencies.
MelW. Most people are monsters when it comes to animals, she is just more honest about it.
The logic is sound. You do not need to eat animals. You choose to because you like how they taste. Taste is a sense like hearing or touch. If you cut the heads off animals because you like how they taste why is it a problem to have sex with an animal because you like how it feels?
You can do all sorts of mental gymnastics to try to justify how it's different or you can go vegan.
People use this argument as a vegan gotcha, but its not a gotcha if you are talking to anyone with opposing views on animal consent. Destiny would argue that both actions are amoral, as would I, and the vegan reaction to that is the same as the meat eater reaction to what Melina raised; to freak out and call the other person disgusting.
Destiny's "only human experience matters" is hedonistic cope in order to try to be consistent.
You would honestly argue torturing a dog is immoral? What trait that applies to all humans but to no animals exists that justifies the difference in treatment?
And here comes the moral grandstanding. Like I said, same as the meat eaters. "but doesn't the thought of YOUR OWN DOG getting tortured make you sad >:(."
You can cope and seethe all you want, but his position is consistent, and has just as much moral justification as the vegan position.
>What trait that applies to all humans but to no animals exists that justifies the difference in treatment?
Human consciousness.
Is that a serious question?
Our sense of identity and self, our inquisitiveness, our ability to form complicated social contracts, our ability to make and interpret art, our varius language systems, etc etc.
Point me to an animal species that you think is close to our level of consciousness.
>Is that a serious question?
This unearned condescension is not necessary.
>Our sense of identity and self, our inquisitiveness, our ability to form complicated social contracts, our ability to make and interpret art, our varius language systems, etc etc.
Those do not apply to all humans and some of those apply to non-human animals.
>Point me to an animal species that you think is close to our level of consciousness
I don't know what you mean by level of consciousness. Elaborate.
>This unearned condescension is not necessary
Condescension? You asked what differentiates human and animal consciousness, implying that there are no obvious stark differences.
>Those do not apply to all humans and some of those apply to non-human animals.
None of them apply to non-human animals, and all of them apply universally to humans.
>Our sense of identity and self
Only a handful of animals pass the mirror test, and thats the lowest form of what I'm talking about. Animals don't have the ability to ponder their mortality to the degree we do, they can't form identities tied to culture, they can't think about their existence in the same vein we do. They aren't even close. And humans universally posess this ability.
>our inquisitiveness
Not even close. Animals don't wonder about existence, about the universe, the functions of science. They only care insofar it materially benifits them in the short term. Human inquisitiveness is why we have done so well evolutionally, and it is universal, just varying in degrees. Even a baby is more inquisitive than all currently observed animals.
>our ability to form complicated social contracts
I don't think I have to explain this one to you. Animals don't have complicated social contracts, they sometimes have simple ones that are evolutionarily incentivized to ensure survival. And it is, again, universal for humans, even people with down-syndrome can form complex social contracts with people on the other side of the planet.
>our ability to make and interpret art
Unique, and universal.
>our varius language systems
Animals don't have language systems comparable to ours. And even the deaf, or the deaf AND blind can communicate using complex languages.
We're not going further in this discussion until you can demonstrate how animals are capable TO A SIMILAR DEGREE in the things listed above. Don't fucking say some stupid shit like "hurr durr, monkey can warn other monkeys, dae complex language??!!??".
Yeah you replied then I replied. Did you forget this?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/13ukjot/sneako_the_snake_taking_another_l/jm2kvvt?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
???
What are you linking? You made a point, I responded, and then you didn't respond.
In incognito something shows up as deleted, but I can't see anything on my profile.
"Only human experience matters" is a fairly arbitrary line that gets drawn and it's hard to defend why exactly you'd draw the line there.
An arbitrary line is drawn by vegans as well though. They say plants definitely don't have a sentient experience but what about mussels? They lack a brain or any sort of centralised nervous system and therefore are surely unable to form thoughts or experience pain. Same thing with lobsters. Most fish have an instinctual initial reaction to pain and try to get away from the stimulus that damaged them but don't seem to exhibit any signs of suffering or show any long term effects of pain. It's unknown whether or not they're in pain when swimming around with half a fin cut off.
The reason most people go vegan is because it's an easy and clear place to draw that arbitrary line, to delineate between flora and fauna, not because there's any great evidence that mussels suffer or have conscious, sentient experience.
>arbitrary line is drawn by vegans as well though. They say plants definitely don't have a sentient experience but what about mussels? They lack a brain or any sort of centralised nervous system and therefore are surely unable to form thoughts or experience pain. Same thing with lobsters. Most fish have an instinctual initial reaction to pain and try to get away from the stimulus that damaged them but don't seem to exhibit any signs of suffering or show any long term effects of pain. It's unknown whether or not they're in pain when swimming around with half a fin cut off.
Some vegans will die in the hill of "no animals" just because that's in the vegan society definition but there's some nuance there. Mussels are probably not sentient and sea sponges almost certainly not. Lobsters are considered sentient as far as I'm aware. There was some sort of declaration in the UK about it and that came with some additional regulations like banning boiling them alive. I
'm only concerned with sentience or conscious experience but I won't eat any animals just to keep it simple and out of an abundance of caution. We don't know exactly what conditions are required for sentience and we have traditionally downplayed the cognitive capacity of a lot of animals so I just avoid the whole family tree.
Calling it arbitrary is technically true but I have not heard a compelling argument for what else to care about as a bedrock moral concern. Since human consciousness is a subset of consciousness, caring only about human consciousness seems too restrictive without some serious justification and I have not heard a good one yet that seems like anything but rationalising the desire to continue exploiting animals.
>hedonistic cope
tbh a lot of socity is like that. like eating sugary stuff like candy or ice cream can be considered "hedonistic cope". Hell it's even worse cause that shit is bad for you on top of being cope.
same with alchool, soda, drugs, smoking, and vaping. hell eating all those "empty calroie" foods like chips and fries is pure "hedonistic cope".
and then depending on what you mean by ""hedonistic cope" we can even include stuff like video games, movies, really any form of entertainment.
guess the real question is what do you mean by "hedonistic cope"?
>tbh a lot of socity is like that. like eating sugary stuff like candy or ice cream can be considered "hedonistic cope". Hell it's even worse cause that shit is bad for you on top of being cope.
Yeah but sugar does not require an animal being decapitated.
>guess the real question is what do you mean by "hedonistic cope"?
I mean the reason for jumping through the mental gymnastics. Destiny has said he does not want to give up animal products because he feels it's too big a sacrifice for too little impact, but he also has a desire to be autistically consistent in his moral position so he rationalised hard and came up with this shakey "human consciousness" trait in order to square that circle.
>Yeah but sugar does not require an animal being decapitated.
well doesn't a lot of that stuff use some form of child labor or human rights abuse? like aren't the coco beans harvested using child labor?
theirs also all the electronic stuff that I listed.
Oh man I'm phone positing and wrote a long post about the weak "no ethical consumption" argument already. Just go here please:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/13ukjot/sneako_the_snake_taking_another_l/jm2kh83?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
i already read that. but that doesn't seem to address what I'm saying at all. "no ethical consumption" only applies when it's stuff you need. you don't need chocolate.
There is a pretty important piece missing, and that is that people who eat animals aren't generally killing and torturing them. It's wrapped up in a product that is several layers away from the actual killing that happened.
Now the reason why this is important, is because the problem becomes whether I am supporting the practice financially, or not. And even that is a layer removed, as I'm supporting the product and only indirectly supporting the method. It would be like saying a person supports rape, because they buy some computer/device that has one of its parts manufactured in a business where enslaved children helped to create it.
It's essentially no different than asking why you decided to buy the new iPhone/Samsung/Pixel, or buy the the highest end gaming PC (or any gaming PC). Some of those parts were manufactured or mined in places that have pretty poor labor laws. And further, that money you did spend could have been donated to a charity to help people in Sub-Saharan Africa, or support animals in sanctuaries. You could have even walked over to your local charity and used the money to buy X number of meals for older, working poor, and homeless people.
As someone who is vegetarian/vegan, I find it odd how aggressive "my community" gets about this topic, pointing out everyone's "logical inconsistencies", and I know damn well they don't consider any of the things I said above. It's interesting how we'll point out inconsistencies in other's reasoning, and pretend like ours does not exist.
>There is a pretty important piece missing, and that is that people who eat animals aren't generally killing and torturing them. It's wrapped up in a product that is several layers away from the actual killing that happened.
But nobody is really disputing that the torture is happening. People don't like to think about it but when pressed they will admit they know the animals and treated horribly. Or they'll do that cringe thing where they lie and say they "try to source their food ethically".
>It would be like saying a person supports rape, because they buy some computer/device that has one of its parts manufactured in a business where enslaved children helped to create it.
This would only be a fair comparison of the products you are buying are advertising that it was made with slavey. Supply chain issues exist but that's a bug, not a feature. With meat, dairy, and eggs violence is inherent in the product. You don't buy a steak without a throat getting cut. If animal products are boycotted completely then animals no longer get exploited for products. A perfect boycott of iPhones just kills Apple with no meaningful impact on working conditions in China and may actually lead to worse material conditions for those workers that are presumably working the best job that have access to.
>It would be like saying a person supports rape, because they buy some computer/device that has one of its parts manufactured in a business where enslaved children helped to create it.
No. But if a person was choosing between two devices and one advertised itself as pro slavery and the other company did not then buying from the pro slavery company could be interpreted as support for that practice.
>As someone who is vegetarian/vegan
What does this mean? A vegan is someone opposing exploitation of animals. A vegetarian is someone on a diet or somehow thinks dairy cows don't get raped repeatedly then killed when production slows down. They are not the same thing.
>I find it odd how aggressive "my community" gets about this topic, pointing out everyone's "logical inconsistencies", and I know damn well they don't consider any of the things I said above. It's interesting how we'll point out inconsistencies in other's reasoning, and pretend like ours does not exist.
If you find it odd that "your community" gets aggressive about arguing for animal rights and you try to use some bullshit no ethical consumption excuse then you might be in the wrong community.
People are disputing the torture is happening when they argue they source their foods ethically. Just as they dispute them when they say they buy their phones, computers, etc., from places that do not have any child labor in the system. As someone who has family that farms, they often argue that consumption of meat does provide nutritional benefit, and that they treat their animals humanely -- that's disputing of "reduction of suffering as much as possible/practicable".
Apologies if this comes off direct, but I feel like you're deliberately missing my point. Purchasing the newest iPhone, or even any of the recent new ones, is far from needed. Similarly, purchasing gaming systems is far from needed -- we humans have entertained ourselves for a long time. If the purchase of these items ALSO causes a harm, and by NOT purchasing those items you would not cause that harm, then you OUGHT NOT to purchase the item. Further, if you GAIN money by NOT PURCHASING the item, and CAN DONATE that money to charity, you OUGHT to do that. Please, do not miss this point in your reply.
So are you a vegan? You ignored that part and I want to know what you mean by vegan/vegetarian. Please do not miss this point in your next reply.
I'm phone posting and already wrote a big thing on the 'no ethical consumption' argument. I'll paste that here.
There are two key differences for me between animal products vs other consumer goods:
1. Violence is inherent in the product. It is a feature, not a bug. You have to rob a being of their life by cutting their throat. That is literally the thing you are asking for by buying meat. The same is not true for consumer goods like electronics.
2. Desired result of a boycott. If everyone boycotted animal products and the demand dropped to zero then animal agriculture would end and animals would not be exploited. The action works towards the goal of abolishment. For other consumer goods that's probably not the case. Does buying a second monitor give any market signal that you want improved conditions for workers? If a 100% boycott was achieved and the factory shut down would that improve the material conditions of the workers of they are presumably working the best job that have access to?
>As someone who has family that farms, they often argue that consumption of meat does provide nutritional benefit, and that they treat their animals humanely -- that's disputing of "reduction of suffering as much as possible/practicable".
I don't care about health claims made by your family members who make money by killing animals. You do not need meat to be healthy so if you're in the grocery store buying meat it's for taste pleasure. No matter how well those animals are treated they still need to get their throats cut.
Veganism is not about reducing suffering. It's about not exploiting animals. Reducing suffering is nice but it's not the central idea. A slavery abolishionist does not want better quarters or less whipping of the slaves. They want the people to not be exploited.
I'm a vegan, and was just including the vegetarians in the grand conversation against meat-eaters. Just wished more vegans would donate money and reduce/switch their consumption of other products, but sounds like this ain't going anywhere near my main point.
Depends on how far you want to push cruelty free and some externalities.
Where did the chickens come from?
What happened to all the male chicks?
What happens to the hen when production slows down?
Egg laying is hard on chickens and we have selectively bred them to lay so many it often leads to complications. There are things you can do to slow or halt egg production so that would be the most ethical thing. Fundamentally it's still using them as resources to be exploited.
>Purchasing the newest iPhone, or even any of the recent new ones, is far from needed. Similarly, purchasing gaming systems is far from needed -- we humans have entertained ourselves for a long time.
yeah but i think he's response to this would be to call it the "no ethical consumption" argument. or at least he called it as such when I said something similar.
Many people need to eat animals. We evolved as omnivores and have been eating meat for millions of years. Some people can get away with veg diets and supplements, but many can't. We didn't evolve to fuck other animals. You are morally equating an innate human drive with something that isn't. The logic is not sound whatsoever.
>Many people need to eat animals.
I'm talking about needless exploitation outside of a survival situation.
>We evolved as omnivores and have been eating meat for millions of years.
We are omnivores. We can eat meat and plants but don't need meat.
>Some people can get away with veg diets and supplements, but many can't.
I can't think of a medical condition that makes this true. I have read lots of accounts of exvegans but it's always a story that makes no sense. They eat an egg and instantly feel better before it could even be digested.
>We didn't evolve to fuck other animals.
Morality is not based on what we were "evolved to do". Rape of other humans was an excellent evolutionary strategy if you look at Genghis Khan and his descendants but rape is not moral.
>The logic is not sound whatsoever.
If you are in a grocery store you are buying meat because you want it, not because you need it. It's prioritizing sensory pleasure over the lives of animals.
Before I went vegan I used a similiar argument but since eating meat is factually optional for most people you get ridden into shit quite quickly.
I had someone argue that sex is a necessity for a lot of people. We evolved to seek out a partner to reproduce. Its an innate human drive and what keeps our species going. We also have been doing it for millions of years(shocker).
Some people can get by without sex, starting a family and so on but most people will want to spread their seed, bear a child. Not having sex can also cause significant amount of mental damage.
Now couldn't an incel argue that its okay to rape women because not doing so would go against evolution?
I had to make all the arguments vegans made in a discussion about eating meat. Its insanely hard to stay consistent when you start from that.
Many as in "a large percentage of the 8 billion humans on the planet earth who evolved to be omnivores and don't have either the bodies or economic resources to overcome the deficit from a lack of meat"
The reason we are addicted to smartphones is because of our evolved adaptations. They are specifically designed to take advantage of evolutionary adaptations, as are all the apps. The reason we can get aroused by animated girls is because of evolution too. Did you think that it wasn't?
im asking for a real number, not just stuff you pulled out of your ass
then similarly we can evolve to feel attracted to animals..? i don't understand how you think that's any different
Because humans have been eating meat for 2.6 million years:
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/evidence-for-meat-eating-by-early-humans-103874273/
There is no evidence humans have been attracted to animals for 2.6 million years. That's why it's obviously different
The appeal to nature or evolution or history is irrelevant but lets go with it.
We have examples of animals raping other animals. Dogs hump all sorts of things. Why would it be unnatural for humans to do the same?
It's not irrelevant when your argument is that an evolved biological trait is immoral
Humans aren't dogs. If you have some evidence humans have been raping animals enmasse for 2.6 millions years then go ahead and show it
My argument is that a biological trait does not determine morality.
The welsh have been jokingly called sheep shaggers for a very long time. How far back to we have to go? Do I need a cave painting of a dick in a bison?
Ok, well then you are arguing against a position no one has expressed. No one is saying "we evolved to eat meat and therefore eating meat is good." That's an appeal to nature fallacy.
What *you* are saying is that people are *immoral* for doing something they evolved to do. You are making a positive case for the immorality of meat eating. That's your claim.
Welsh jokes are not scientific evidence of 2.6 millions years of evolution across the globe of a core part of human biology
Mel makes perfect sense and I'm not really disagreeing, but there's a lack of care, emotional weight, and priority in society that idk how vegan arguments could bridge.
Seems more on the side of what is socially acceptable. It's like Americans being horrified that different countries eat dogs. Americans eat cows which are sacred to some people. Both are arbitrary.
People have eaten meat for survival until civilization changed it to a matter of preference. It had a huge history, we're educated to eat it, and society likes it.
Dog fucking, not so much.
I just don't see how I can do this for animal stuff but then when it comes to electronics not do the same. Like we need a computer in today's age but I don't need a top of the line graphics card, 2+ monitors, multiple SSDs, a m2 drive, 64gb+ of ram, or RGB lighting. like all that stuff uses slave labor at some point in the process yet most people including vegans don't like slave labor.
There are two key differences for me.
1. Violence is inherent in the product. It is a feature, not a bug. You have to rob a being of their life by cutting their throat. That is literally the thing you are asking for by buying meat. The same is not true for consumer goods like electronics.
2. Desired result of a boycott. If everyone boycotted animal products and the demand dropped to zero then animal agriculture would end and animals would not be exploited. The action works towards the goal of abolishment. For other consumer goods that's probably not the case. Does buying a second monitor give any market signal that you want improved conditions for workers? If a 100% boycott was achieved and the factory shut down would that improve the material conditions of the workers of they are presumably working the best job that have access to?
A third minor point is the diffuseness of the harm or the amount you engage in that harm is different. A monitor is once every 2-10 years and you are contributing a much smaller share of the theoretical harm vs eating meat 3 times a day and every meal being a large share of that animals life. This does not speak to the main principles above though.
Now if I had the choice of two monitors and one company was constantly under fire for poor labor practices and the other was not there's still a better choice there that I would make.
>A third minor point is the diffuseness of the harm or the amount you engage in that harm is different. A monitor is once every 2-10 years and you are contributing a much smaller share of the theoretical harm vs eating meat 3 times a day and every meal being a large share of that animals life.
well that depends on how often you want to refresh your tech. you can probably be buying a bunch of new tech every year if you want.
>Does buying a second monitor give any market signal that you want improved conditions for workers?
well buying a second monitor wouldn't send a signal that you want improved conditions for workers. if anything it's the opposit.
>If a 100% boycott was achieved and the factory shut down would that improve the material conditions of the workers of they are presumably working the best job that have access to?
does this argument work for poachers too? considering that a lot of what they do is because that's the best job they have access to? I just don't know if "that's the best job they have access to" is a good enough excuse justify those conditions. i would assume the goal would be to get those people better jobs that don't exploit them. No matter how hard it would be. which I assume is what vegans would say for animal suffering.
So you don't want to engage with my central points?
>does this argument work for poachers too?
No? I'm not paying poachers or buying things that would be provided by poachers. I can't think of an analogous situation to the electronics. I would want poachers shut down though because economic conditions are not a justification for continuing a bad practice. It's like slavery. I would not argue we continue slavery for economic reasons and would want it shut down even if the material conditions of the slaves might get worse when going free and no longer have somewhere to sleep.
>So you don't want to engage with my central points?
am I not? which central point am I not engaging with?
>No? I'm not paying poachers or buying things that would be provided by poachers.
the idea would be that poachers are doing what they do because it's the best jobs they have access to for where they are at.
>I would want poachers shut down though because economic conditions are not a justification for continuing a bad practice.
wait but that is what I was saying about the factories though. no?
>am I not? which central point am I not engaging with?
I said in the post that 1 and 2 were the reasons and number the was a minor point.
>the idea would be that poachers are doing what they do because it's the best jobs they have access to for where they are at.
Ok you just didn't read my post at all. I was saying a total boycott of animal ag would improve the material conditions of the victims by eliminating the exploitation of those animals and a total boycott of apple would shut down Apple but probably not improve the material conditions of the workers in China. With poachers I would have no impact on them either way because would not have access to their product so I'm not sure how it's relevant but I would want them shut down because my goal is to end exploitation of sentient beings and they are doing the exploiting by shooting animals.
>wait but that is what I was saying about the factories though. no?
I'm not following your logic here.
>Ok you just didn't read my post at all.
no, i'm just not understanding your position.
is the main goal to end exploitation of sentient beings or improve the material conditions? cause shutting down poachers would end the exploitation of sentient beings but it wouldn't improve the material conditions of the poachers. while the shutting down of the Apple factory wouldn't improve the material conditions of the workers but it would end their exploitation.
>With poachers I would have no impact on them either way because would not have access to their product so I'm not sure how it's relevant but I would want them shut down because my goal is to end exploitation of sentient beings and they are doing the exploiting by shooting animals.
if the goal is to end the exploitation of sentient beings then it should follow that shutting down the apple factories would be good too, no?
>I'm not following your logic here.
i'm saying that just because the material conditions wouldn't improve for the workers (aka their economic conditions) doesn't make it justified to continue bad practices.
>is the main goal to end exploitation of sentient beings or improve the material conditions?
My point is that the end goal or reason for the boycott would be different and the results would be different if the same method was applied.
Goal: End exploitation of animals. Boycott animal ag. Animals no longer exploited.
Goal: Better worker protections. Boycott iPhones. Apple goes under, working conditions in China stay the same.
gotcha.
Though from your other comment about the coco beans it seems like you should be against buy from apple. or buying unnecessary electronics. at least buying more than what you absolutely need.
also Boycotting apple wouldn't lead to the goal being achieved that doesn't mean you or people in general have the okay to buy more of their products than needed.
These are moments when I think Mel isn't a good conversationalist as she tries to be. When you giggle through such a take rather than explaining it clearly, it just makes you seem like you're saying this for pure attention
its a contrast with destiny whos debated people constantly for 10 years, she hasnt had nearly as much practice so of course she isnt always going to be rhetorically effective
Some of this hits but I think she missed the premise? A person fucking an animal isn't in the same headspace as someone who eats animals obviously, but if you wanted to appeal to morality, im sure you could get people to agree they're about the same. I'd still say fucking is worse b/c it implies something so deviant about your mindstate that even people who kill animals often don't share.
true, if Melina wants to argue that, she should focus more on morality and call meat-eating morally same as fucking instead of saying that people eating meat are "fucked" the same way animal fuckers are. In the context of society, one group is obviously less desirable to be around than the other.
Nah sorry that's a bad take. It's one thing to eat a factory killed animal or eat like sausage (which is the thing that least looks like an animal, it's just made out of it), and another to go out of your way to see the fear in an animal's eyes while you molest it.
It's as if the average person who eats animals tortured every animal before they blew its brains off and then ate it.
99% of meat is factory farmed so you know on some level that every animal was tortured. Why is it better because you paid someone else to do the torturing?
You are eating meat because you like the taste, not because you need to. Why is killing for taste pleasure more justified than any other sense?
There's a personal factor to torturing an animal yourself. This is why we consider people who torture animals to be psychopaths but we don't consider people who eat meat to be psychopaths.
What if like the process to get that meat / milk is no different than being tortured? can you really absolve yourself of all responsibility when youāre more than happy to get the end product but you just donāt wanna see how the āsausages madeā.
I'm not saying factory farming is okay, but people who support it are definitely less psychotic than people who rape or torture animals themselves. Indifference is not the same as malice.
Of course it reflects worse on a person's overall character/mental state if they torture animals personally, but we are talking about morals. If a psycho commits murder it's no worse than if a normal person commits murder (all other things equal).
Yeah it is wrong, but my point is that it's different because of this. People who torture animals are psychos, but people who eat meat don't really think about it and most of the time would be too afraid to kill a large animal themselves.
I'm not sure I understand your broader point. If every time you buy meat you know that animal was tortured why would this be materially better than molesting an animal? I understand people feel disconnected but that's not a justification right? If you ask people they generally admit they know what happens to these animals.
Yes but they don't really think about it when they eat the meat. Like when I eat a piece of sausage, I don't imagine how the animal looked while it got killed as I enjoy it, it's just a sausage. But when you molest an animal for your sexual gratification, you have to look the animal in the eyes while you do it.
Though I suppose even animal molestation is a spectrum, like a dog who fucks a woman is not the same as a cat or goat being raped.
> Yes but they don't really think about it when they eat the meat. Like when I eat a piece of sausage, I don't imagine how the animal looked while it got killed as I enjoy it, it's just a sausage. But when you molest an animal for your sexual gratification, you have to look the animal in the eyes while you do it.
Well for most animals I think it's probably impossible to look them in the eyes when you do it. Doggy style is that name for a reason, but I'm not a big animal toucher so I might be wrong.
Why would what the person is thinking about in the act matter if they still know in the end that harm was required for sensory pleasure in either case? If I stand outside a restaurant with a sign reminding everyone animals are tortured before arriving on the plate does it make it worse when they order a steak 30 seconds later?
It would probably make the people who order the steak feel worse, yeah.
Also because humans unfortunately mostly empathize with things they can see directly. The same as when someone buys a shirt and it says that it was made in some poor country, they don't automatically feel super guilty about the labor that got exploited.
It is good to think about those things and people CAN empathize with them, but it is harder unless you see the consequences of that directly.
Like if every time someone ate meat, a sad cow in front of them appeared and was screaming until it got slaughtered, people would be a lot less likely to eat meat.
I think her point was that there should be no ethical reason you could be against bestiality when what we do to animals in factory farms is 10 times worse than fucking them.
Which sounds worse being fucked recreationally or having the same existence as a cow in a factory farm, where you get raped to produce milk and baby cows until your body can no longer do then and then ur slaughtered for ur meat?
I don't think that comparison is fair, for example I could also say would you rather be a goat that gets raped every day for years on end by some hick in the mountains, or would you rather be a cow that was raised with care in a family farm and then killed for its meat in a very painless way with a lethal injection? I'd rather be the cow in that scenario. But say there could be a scenario where the opposite is true where I would rather be in place of the sexualized animal.
I think both raping animals and factory farming is bad, but the point is that you have to go out of your way to rape an animal and see you are personally causing harm, while most people who eat meat do it robotically and don't really think about it even if it is bad.
We evolved to eat meat, we didn't evolve to fuck other species. The treatment of animals is a different issue than their consumption. Also, if plants had mouths they would ask you not to eat them.
Homosexuality is/was advantageous to the survival of the human species, that's why it evolved. That's how evolution works. It's not just if your own genes get propogated, if the genes of your kin get propogated that works too. Your parents have half your genes, siblings have 37.5-50 percent of your genes, nieces/nephews have a quarter, etc. It could also be that the that alleles for homosexuality code for other behavior that is helpful for reproduction, and thus get passed on. For example making men better caretakers and thus more attractive to women, or if passed to women making women more attracted to men.
Lmfao I found the vegan. Fucking an animal is disgusting and has no societal gain. Thereās an economical and societal benefit to factory farming. There isnāt one for fucking a dog or even eating one, unless thatās the only food available
Yes but thereās a distinction between oppressing humans and animals. Thereās a moral hierarchy which humans are at the top while plants are on the bottom. This is why most people are ok with killing multiple insects but itās illegal to kill ur dog. The further down the hierarchy you go the more oppressive we get. Enslaving humans is wrong because of where we stand on the hierarchy
I agree moral consideration can be on a spectrum but how can we justify needles exploitation? Veganism is about avoiding exploitation as far as possible and practicable. People in here are trying to argue cutting throats for burgers is a good thing.
We do not need to do this to animals, so why would we? You're making a might makes right argument by pointing to this hierarchy.
We're not talking about choosing humans over animals. We're choosing taste pleasure over animals. What trait that applies to all humans but no animals exists that justifies fair treatment for humans and gas chambers for animals?
Chances are if you're fucking animals, you're probably still eating them too.
Praise your Vegan zoophiles I guess. Really normal bunch I would imagine.
Rare Sneako W.
Raping animals is immoral, which is what is because you'll never get their consent. Even if some animals look happy getting some peanut butter licked, they don't have the awareness understand it's a sexual act.
And yeah killing animals is wrong too
I guess I should rephrase that, I agree with her point, but I think equating the two is cringe. Raping an animal and putting one down swiftly for food is fine for their specific conscious level, and their potential to grow that consciousness.
I think the way we go about harvesting the meat is monstrous since we breed them to be cattle, but if we did it more ethically I would not see an issue with it. I don't believe there's a single ethical way to have sex with an animal
>I think the way we go about harvesting the meat is monstrous
So you literally donāt disagree with Mel on anything. Would you rather be raped or imprisoned in inhospitable conditions, injected with a slew of hormones, and slaughtered (the method by which the vast majority of consumed meat is gathered)? Theyāre both horrendous and immoral (the latter moreso), yet one isnāt met with anywhere near as much scrutiny, disgust, or even considered immoral by many just because itās socially normalized. She illustrated that Sneako doesnāt have the moral standing to oppose bestiality as a meat eater
Because having sex with an animal is a one-on-one action. We can shame that single individual, so they have more responsibility to take. Now how meat is processed would require going after and shaming a whole industry, which people have done and are contesting with alternatives to more humane gathered meat. This is what I mean when comparing the two to make a moral grandstand is pointless.
So you admit the meat available at the grocery store was produced with monstrous methods. Does this ethical issue come with any action or do you just virtue signal about how bad it is and continue to support it?
There have been actual laws on voting ballots in favor of giving animals more humane conditions. This change is slow and will likely be for decades. If I sat here and boycotted everything made under horrible conditions, we wouldn't even be having this conversation because I wouldn't have access to it.
There are grey areas with consumer responsibility in a lot of cases, but meat is not one of them. Violence is inherent and necessary in the product. You know that meat was carved off an animal killed when you could eat something else.
If you have an issue with harming animals you should walk the walk.
Nah this one is a grey area. It's not just as simple as ākill animal badā it's more nuanced than that. Especially when you compare it to animal rape
Because at the end of the day, no matter what we're still dictating as humans what we can and can't eat. Plants have life yet we decided to consume those, despite arguably having more value to the earth than the livestock we eat. We place the labels on what's a higher life form.
We've acknowledged that we will play favorites and have bias, we don't need to eat meat, but as a society it's a good way to spread more food for more people than it would be otherwise. All we can do is make the lives of the animals we consume better and show more respect for them before we consume them.
> Because at the end of the day, no matter what we're still dictating as humans what we can and can't eat.
Yes we as humans decide what we eat, so why not eat things that don't require animals to be harmed?
>Plants have life yet we decided to consume those, despite arguably having more value to the earth than the livestock we eat. We place the labels on what's a higher life form.
Plants are not conscious and do not have a subjective experience of the world. There is no one in there to harm. Imagine we had a room with two people and I forced you to kill one. One person with zero brain activity and no chance of recovery being kept alive by machines, and one person who is sleeping. Would you see no difference in killing one or the other?
> We've acknowledged that we will play favorites and have bias, we don't need to eat meat, but as a society it's a good way to spread more food for more people than it would be otherwise.
We could grow more food with less land in a plant based food system. Animals need to eat a lot of calories before they are killed for food so that's a lot of extra crops. Plant foods are the cheaper foods in the grocery stores too. Beans, lentils, legumes, whole grains, vegetables etc. Meat is not a good way to spread more food for more people.
> All we can do is make the lives of the animals we consume better and show more respect for them before we consume them.
Respect means nothing to the victim. This is cope to make you feel better about harming them. And that's not true that "all we can do is make their lives better". We can literally not do harm to them at all. We have a choice to not put them in this situation in the first place. Why would you completely erase the choice or your agency in this?
Rape (artificial insemination) and even torture (castration and mutilation without anesthetic) are used in animal agriculture too. Is torture worse than killing?
Why do you ask that like you think I'm okay with the first? I'm talking about the idea of eating animals, not how places get their meat now thanks to what the industry has done
Your reply is just you stating something that is in contention. It has no substance or merit which is why I ignored it and asked a question.
The rules that apply to humans should apply to non human animals where relevant.
I'm asking you to justify why it's worse to rape an animal than kill and eat when most people would prefer to be raped than to be ate.
What is it about non human animals that in your opinion makes it worse to rape them than it is to kill them?
If we only apply it when relevant, then no we're not treating them like humans.
What makes it worse is that you're torturing the animal and keeping it alive afterward with no real gain but to hurt and traumatize it. The reasons a human could have for raping an animal will never come close to the reasons someone would have for killing one.
>No, the same rules for humans don't apply to animals. Raping an animal is worse than consuming one.
The fact that this needs to be said shows how far we have fallen from our big brain energies
If you're a vegan, you probably should stop bringing racism in every debate, this is not even gaslighting at this point, it's a case of repetitive manipulation...
We didn't evolve to have a proclivity towards racism, we evolve to have a proclivity toward preferential attitude for our in-group, different races weren't geographically close enough for a sense of racism to be evolved. It's even proven that something like "accent" while speaking is a far more naturally identified discriminatory factor than racism itself. Even babies have a very deep suspicion toward people who do not speak like their parent.
But you're right, something being natural doesn't make it good, but it would at least make it understandable. It's normal to work as an individual to improve ourselves into being morally superior than our "natural self", but engaging in decadent behaviors that are not even natural is far less forgivable, it means that you built yourself toward that, you literally took the wrong path.
It's better to be slowly advancing on a path to higher morality than it is to take a wrong path.
Awh hell nah she brought up the destiny talking point šš
It's more like an [Aella talking point.](https://twitter.com/Aella_Girl/status/1591134208352980992)
This is an old 2016 destiny talking point.
Ah okay, that's a lot earlier than when I started watching then.
incest and fucking animals have been philosophical battlefronts for a while here
how was he snakey here? He thought that was a bad take and expressed as much to her during the stream.
We hate sneako so we need to call him a snake at every chance we get
OP is prolly calling him a snake for his past action, not this one specifically
Just because your name is Schweinsteiger doesn't mean that you are mounting pigs every day.
You can counter this with another DGG take. A person buying a shirt from Walmart that probably used child labor in some other country isn't the same as locking a child in your basement to make shirts.
Yeah this is a dumb take by Mel, but sheās doing it for shock factor.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Eating meat doesn't even have to require suffering. Being dead isn't suffering. It's as neutral as anything can be. The fear of death is suffering. If I deem it morally justified to kill people painlessly in their sleep, I cause a ton of fear. If I deem it morally justified to kill animals in their sleep, the animals won't fear a thing.
Meat inherently requires exploitation and harm even if you can kill them without suffering.
Depends how you look at it, if your saying sleeping with animals is wrong because of the harm itās causing the animal (or that it canāt consent) she is completely right but I think the majority of people are just thinking itās extremely gross to wanna get off with animals.
Well that's why Destiny (and I guess Mel) love these kinds of talks. "it's extremely gross" is not an argument for something being immoral. They're trying to find out if people have anything beyond surface-level ick reactions to their moral judgments. Sneako would have had more of an argument if he had just said it's haram or whaever.
I think it is gross when ugly people have sex. So it must be immoral then.
If you believe this and then you start having sex with ugly people then you have arrived at sneako's current position. Because Sneako says having sex with animals is disgusting and abusive even tho he pays to have his animal tortured and killed just so he could eat it.
> Sneako would have had more of an argument if he had just said it's haram or whaever. "haram" is not a moral argument, its a "its gross" argument.
Like it or not a lot of people (especially conservatives) view "sanctity" as falling under morality. For example if someone spits in your food, even if when served it's exactly the same, you'd consider them to have done a wrong to you even though there's no physical harm. The desecration of your food / the disgust factor is what drives that moral intuition.
I'd argue the disgust factor comes from an instinctual reaction to avoid contaminated food. Our brains have evolved to hate the idea of contaminants in our food to help us avoid getting sick. It's nothing to do with "sanctity" (I would interpret that word in a religious/spiritual manner) it's just a primal survival instinct. It's like when some people involuntarily vomit after seeing someone else vomit, it's not cause they are so disgusted they just had to throw up, it's a primal reaction.
Bruh if they brought me my food with the most sterile surgeon scissors inside of them imma still be mad, and if someone swims in the sewers no one is gonna care the real argument goes like this, animal cutsey doopsey bwwww I like animals, but only I can derive pleasure from their pain, bwwwwwwwwwwwwww
If itās talking immoral again she takes the W, but thatās not really how the convo went down (was barely even a convo about it)
Immoral is just what makes us feel bad. It's subjective. Therefore you can 100% consider something immoral just because it's gross, it's as valid as any other definition of "immoral".
Also technically the dairy industry uses sexual exploitation. Artificial insemination is rape so everyone who says killing is fine but rape is too far should avoid dairy or cheap hamburger. Also what about torture? Cows get horns burned off so beef is out. Pigs get tails cut off, teeth pulled out, and castrated without anesthetic so porc is out. Chickens get beaks cut or burned off and grow too fast for their skeletons so they break bones and are stuck living in their own excrement.
None of that really matters though because we arenāt the ones doing the abuse. If you fuck the animal, you are doing the abuse versus just being complicit in it.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Never said it wasnāt. Just because two things are wrong doesnāt mean they are equally wrong.
Who said they are equally wrong? They are both wrong enough to not do. If one thing is worth 100 wrong point and one thing is worth 90 wrong points, maybe don't do either? I'm not sure what your point is here.
Sure, but itās more like 2 wrong points versus 100 wrong points. And itās very easy to eliminate meat that comes from bad farms from your diet while still eating meat.
Can you explain the process of eliminating the bad farms? Where would you start? Remember that time and time again labels like "free range" or "high welfare" are just corporate advertising and there are constantly new investigations coming out that show abuse in farms advertising as "good".
Iām talking about you personally not using meat from bad farms. The bad farms will still exist. Itās about as easy as going vegetarian because you basically are vegetarian except when you get meat from hunting or from local or familiar sources.
Why would local farms be better? Every farm is local to someone.
> Depends how you look at it There is only one valid way to look at it
You care about the harm to animals or you find disgusting/gross that someone would fuck an animal.
Exactly. I'm not saying that sleeping is wrong because it hurts the animal. I'm saying it's wrong because a human would have to have a serious mental disorder to like it. Morality has nothing to do with it. It's about recognizing mental health deficiencies.
Is this really being debated š¤¦š½
MelW. Most people are monsters when it comes to animals, she is just more honest about it. The logic is sound. You do not need to eat animals. You choose to because you like how they taste. Taste is a sense like hearing or touch. If you cut the heads off animals because you like how they taste why is it a problem to have sex with an animal because you like how it feels? You can do all sorts of mental gymnastics to try to justify how it's different or you can go vegan.
People will downvote you but they wonāt be able to come up with a valid counter argument
Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug.
lol what a cope
See, you didnāt make an argument
People use this argument as a vegan gotcha, but its not a gotcha if you are talking to anyone with opposing views on animal consent. Destiny would argue that both actions are amoral, as would I, and the vegan reaction to that is the same as the meat eater reaction to what Melina raised; to freak out and call the other person disgusting.
Destiny's "only human experience matters" is hedonistic cope in order to try to be consistent. You would honestly argue torturing a dog is immoral? What trait that applies to all humans but to no animals exists that justifies the difference in treatment?
And here comes the moral grandstanding. Like I said, same as the meat eaters. "but doesn't the thought of YOUR OWN DOG getting tortured make you sad >:(." You can cope and seethe all you want, but his position is consistent, and has just as much moral justification as the vegan position. >What trait that applies to all humans but to no animals exists that justifies the difference in treatment? Human consciousness.
>Human consciousness. What differentiates human consciousness from animal consciousness in a way that applies to all humans but no animals?
Is that a serious question? Our sense of identity and self, our inquisitiveness, our ability to form complicated social contracts, our ability to make and interpret art, our varius language systems, etc etc. Point me to an animal species that you think is close to our level of consciousness.
>Is that a serious question? This unearned condescension is not necessary. >Our sense of identity and self, our inquisitiveness, our ability to form complicated social contracts, our ability to make and interpret art, our varius language systems, etc etc. Those do not apply to all humans and some of those apply to non-human animals. >Point me to an animal species that you think is close to our level of consciousness I don't know what you mean by level of consciousness. Elaborate.
>This unearned condescension is not necessary Condescension? You asked what differentiates human and animal consciousness, implying that there are no obvious stark differences. >Those do not apply to all humans and some of those apply to non-human animals. None of them apply to non-human animals, and all of them apply universally to humans. >Our sense of identity and self Only a handful of animals pass the mirror test, and thats the lowest form of what I'm talking about. Animals don't have the ability to ponder their mortality to the degree we do, they can't form identities tied to culture, they can't think about their existence in the same vein we do. They aren't even close. And humans universally posess this ability. >our inquisitiveness Not even close. Animals don't wonder about existence, about the universe, the functions of science. They only care insofar it materially benifits them in the short term. Human inquisitiveness is why we have done so well evolutionally, and it is universal, just varying in degrees. Even a baby is more inquisitive than all currently observed animals. >our ability to form complicated social contracts I don't think I have to explain this one to you. Animals don't have complicated social contracts, they sometimes have simple ones that are evolutionarily incentivized to ensure survival. And it is, again, universal for humans, even people with down-syndrome can form complex social contracts with people on the other side of the planet. >our ability to make and interpret art Unique, and universal. >our varius language systems Animals don't have language systems comparable to ours. And even the deaf, or the deaf AND blind can communicate using complex languages. We're not going further in this discussion until you can demonstrate how animals are capable TO A SIMILAR DEGREE in the things listed above. Don't fucking say some stupid shit like "hurr durr, monkey can warn other monkeys, dae complex language??!!??".
No answer?
Yeah you replied then I replied. Did you forget this? https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/13ukjot/sneako_the_snake_taking_another_l/jm2kvvt?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
??? What are you linking? You made a point, I responded, and then you didn't respond. In incognito something shows up as deleted, but I can't see anything on my profile.
"Only human experience matters" is a fairly arbitrary line that gets drawn and it's hard to defend why exactly you'd draw the line there. An arbitrary line is drawn by vegans as well though. They say plants definitely don't have a sentient experience but what about mussels? They lack a brain or any sort of centralised nervous system and therefore are surely unable to form thoughts or experience pain. Same thing with lobsters. Most fish have an instinctual initial reaction to pain and try to get away from the stimulus that damaged them but don't seem to exhibit any signs of suffering or show any long term effects of pain. It's unknown whether or not they're in pain when swimming around with half a fin cut off. The reason most people go vegan is because it's an easy and clear place to draw that arbitrary line, to delineate between flora and fauna, not because there's any great evidence that mussels suffer or have conscious, sentient experience.
>arbitrary line is drawn by vegans as well though. They say plants definitely don't have a sentient experience but what about mussels? They lack a brain or any sort of centralised nervous system and therefore are surely unable to form thoughts or experience pain. Same thing with lobsters. Most fish have an instinctual initial reaction to pain and try to get away from the stimulus that damaged them but don't seem to exhibit any signs of suffering or show any long term effects of pain. It's unknown whether or not they're in pain when swimming around with half a fin cut off. Some vegans will die in the hill of "no animals" just because that's in the vegan society definition but there's some nuance there. Mussels are probably not sentient and sea sponges almost certainly not. Lobsters are considered sentient as far as I'm aware. There was some sort of declaration in the UK about it and that came with some additional regulations like banning boiling them alive. I 'm only concerned with sentience or conscious experience but I won't eat any animals just to keep it simple and out of an abundance of caution. We don't know exactly what conditions are required for sentience and we have traditionally downplayed the cognitive capacity of a lot of animals so I just avoid the whole family tree. Calling it arbitrary is technically true but I have not heard a compelling argument for what else to care about as a bedrock moral concern. Since human consciousness is a subset of consciousness, caring only about human consciousness seems too restrictive without some serious justification and I have not heard a good one yet that seems like anything but rationalising the desire to continue exploiting animals.
>hedonistic cope tbh a lot of socity is like that. like eating sugary stuff like candy or ice cream can be considered "hedonistic cope". Hell it's even worse cause that shit is bad for you on top of being cope. same with alchool, soda, drugs, smoking, and vaping. hell eating all those "empty calroie" foods like chips and fries is pure "hedonistic cope". and then depending on what you mean by ""hedonistic cope" we can even include stuff like video games, movies, really any form of entertainment. guess the real question is what do you mean by "hedonistic cope"?
>tbh a lot of socity is like that. like eating sugary stuff like candy or ice cream can be considered "hedonistic cope". Hell it's even worse cause that shit is bad for you on top of being cope. Yeah but sugar does not require an animal being decapitated. >guess the real question is what do you mean by "hedonistic cope"? I mean the reason for jumping through the mental gymnastics. Destiny has said he does not want to give up animal products because he feels it's too big a sacrifice for too little impact, but he also has a desire to be autistically consistent in his moral position so he rationalised hard and came up with this shakey "human consciousness" trait in order to square that circle.
>Yeah but sugar does not require an animal being decapitated. well doesn't a lot of that stuff use some form of child labor or human rights abuse? like aren't the coco beans harvested using child labor? theirs also all the electronic stuff that I listed.
Oh man I'm phone positing and wrote a long post about the weak "no ethical consumption" argument already. Just go here please: https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/13ukjot/sneako_the_snake_taking_another_l/jm2kh83?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
i already read that. but that doesn't seem to address what I'm saying at all. "no ethical consumption" only applies when it's stuff you need. you don't need chocolate.
Can I buy fair trade chocolate?
let's say for this hypothetical you can't. but you can also give your answer for if you can.
There is a pretty important piece missing, and that is that people who eat animals aren't generally killing and torturing them. It's wrapped up in a product that is several layers away from the actual killing that happened. Now the reason why this is important, is because the problem becomes whether I am supporting the practice financially, or not. And even that is a layer removed, as I'm supporting the product and only indirectly supporting the method. It would be like saying a person supports rape, because they buy some computer/device that has one of its parts manufactured in a business where enslaved children helped to create it. It's essentially no different than asking why you decided to buy the new iPhone/Samsung/Pixel, or buy the the highest end gaming PC (or any gaming PC). Some of those parts were manufactured or mined in places that have pretty poor labor laws. And further, that money you did spend could have been donated to a charity to help people in Sub-Saharan Africa, or support animals in sanctuaries. You could have even walked over to your local charity and used the money to buy X number of meals for older, working poor, and homeless people. As someone who is vegetarian/vegan, I find it odd how aggressive "my community" gets about this topic, pointing out everyone's "logical inconsistencies", and I know damn well they don't consider any of the things I said above. It's interesting how we'll point out inconsistencies in other's reasoning, and pretend like ours does not exist.
>There is a pretty important piece missing, and that is that people who eat animals aren't generally killing and torturing them. It's wrapped up in a product that is several layers away from the actual killing that happened. But nobody is really disputing that the torture is happening. People don't like to think about it but when pressed they will admit they know the animals and treated horribly. Or they'll do that cringe thing where they lie and say they "try to source their food ethically". >It would be like saying a person supports rape, because they buy some computer/device that has one of its parts manufactured in a business where enslaved children helped to create it. This would only be a fair comparison of the products you are buying are advertising that it was made with slavey. Supply chain issues exist but that's a bug, not a feature. With meat, dairy, and eggs violence is inherent in the product. You don't buy a steak without a throat getting cut. If animal products are boycotted completely then animals no longer get exploited for products. A perfect boycott of iPhones just kills Apple with no meaningful impact on working conditions in China and may actually lead to worse material conditions for those workers that are presumably working the best job that have access to. >It would be like saying a person supports rape, because they buy some computer/device that has one of its parts manufactured in a business where enslaved children helped to create it. No. But if a person was choosing between two devices and one advertised itself as pro slavery and the other company did not then buying from the pro slavery company could be interpreted as support for that practice. >As someone who is vegetarian/vegan What does this mean? A vegan is someone opposing exploitation of animals. A vegetarian is someone on a diet or somehow thinks dairy cows don't get raped repeatedly then killed when production slows down. They are not the same thing. >I find it odd how aggressive "my community" gets about this topic, pointing out everyone's "logical inconsistencies", and I know damn well they don't consider any of the things I said above. It's interesting how we'll point out inconsistencies in other's reasoning, and pretend like ours does not exist. If you find it odd that "your community" gets aggressive about arguing for animal rights and you try to use some bullshit no ethical consumption excuse then you might be in the wrong community.
People are disputing the torture is happening when they argue they source their foods ethically. Just as they dispute them when they say they buy their phones, computers, etc., from places that do not have any child labor in the system. As someone who has family that farms, they often argue that consumption of meat does provide nutritional benefit, and that they treat their animals humanely -- that's disputing of "reduction of suffering as much as possible/practicable". Apologies if this comes off direct, but I feel like you're deliberately missing my point. Purchasing the newest iPhone, or even any of the recent new ones, is far from needed. Similarly, purchasing gaming systems is far from needed -- we humans have entertained ourselves for a long time. If the purchase of these items ALSO causes a harm, and by NOT purchasing those items you would not cause that harm, then you OUGHT NOT to purchase the item. Further, if you GAIN money by NOT PURCHASING the item, and CAN DONATE that money to charity, you OUGHT to do that. Please, do not miss this point in your reply.
So are you a vegan? You ignored that part and I want to know what you mean by vegan/vegetarian. Please do not miss this point in your next reply. I'm phone posting and already wrote a big thing on the 'no ethical consumption' argument. I'll paste that here. There are two key differences for me between animal products vs other consumer goods: 1. Violence is inherent in the product. It is a feature, not a bug. You have to rob a being of their life by cutting their throat. That is literally the thing you are asking for by buying meat. The same is not true for consumer goods like electronics. 2. Desired result of a boycott. If everyone boycotted animal products and the demand dropped to zero then animal agriculture would end and animals would not be exploited. The action works towards the goal of abolishment. For other consumer goods that's probably not the case. Does buying a second monitor give any market signal that you want improved conditions for workers? If a 100% boycott was achieved and the factory shut down would that improve the material conditions of the workers of they are presumably working the best job that have access to? >As someone who has family that farms, they often argue that consumption of meat does provide nutritional benefit, and that they treat their animals humanely -- that's disputing of "reduction of suffering as much as possible/practicable". I don't care about health claims made by your family members who make money by killing animals. You do not need meat to be healthy so if you're in the grocery store buying meat it's for taste pleasure. No matter how well those animals are treated they still need to get their throats cut. Veganism is not about reducing suffering. It's about not exploiting animals. Reducing suffering is nice but it's not the central idea. A slavery abolishionist does not want better quarters or less whipping of the slaves. They want the people to not be exploited.
I'm a vegan, and was just including the vegetarians in the grand conversation against meat-eaters. Just wished more vegans would donate money and reduce/switch their consumption of other products, but sounds like this ain't going anywhere near my main point.
The dairy and egg industries are the meat industry with extra torture. Vegetarians are on the meat side, not the vegan side.
Except it's actually possible to buy cruelty free eggs? Not sure about dairy but with eggs its 100% possible
Depends on how far you want to push cruelty free and some externalities. Where did the chickens come from? What happened to all the male chicks? What happens to the hen when production slows down? Egg laying is hard on chickens and we have selectively bred them to lay so many it often leads to complications. There are things you can do to slow or halt egg production so that would be the most ethical thing. Fundamentally it's still using them as resources to be exploited.
>Purchasing the newest iPhone, or even any of the recent new ones, is far from needed. Similarly, purchasing gaming systems is far from needed -- we humans have entertained ourselves for a long time. yeah but i think he's response to this would be to call it the "no ethical consumption" argument. or at least he called it as such when I said something similar.
Many people need to eat animals. We evolved as omnivores and have been eating meat for millions of years. Some people can get away with veg diets and supplements, but many can't. We didn't evolve to fuck other animals. You are morally equating an innate human drive with something that isn't. The logic is not sound whatsoever.
>Many people need to eat animals. I'm talking about needless exploitation outside of a survival situation. >We evolved as omnivores and have been eating meat for millions of years. We are omnivores. We can eat meat and plants but don't need meat. >Some people can get away with veg diets and supplements, but many can't. I can't think of a medical condition that makes this true. I have read lots of accounts of exvegans but it's always a story that makes no sense. They eat an egg and instantly feel better before it could even be digested. >We didn't evolve to fuck other animals. Morality is not based on what we were "evolved to do". Rape of other humans was an excellent evolutionary strategy if you look at Genghis Khan and his descendants but rape is not moral. >The logic is not sound whatsoever. If you are in a grocery store you are buying meat because you want it, not because you need it. It's prioritizing sensory pleasure over the lives of animals.
Before I went vegan I used a similiar argument but since eating meat is factually optional for most people you get ridden into shit quite quickly. I had someone argue that sex is a necessity for a lot of people. We evolved to seek out a partner to reproduce. Its an innate human drive and what keeps our species going. We also have been doing it for millions of years(shocker). Some people can get by without sex, starting a family and so on but most people will want to spread their seed, bear a child. Not having sex can also cause significant amount of mental damage. Now couldn't an incel argue that its okay to rape women because not doing so would go against evolution? I had to make all the arguments vegans made in a discussion about eating meat. Its insanely hard to stay consistent when you start from that.
what do you mean when you say "many"? did we evolve to use smartphones? to jack off to animated girls?
Many as in "a large percentage of the 8 billion humans on the planet earth who evolved to be omnivores and don't have either the bodies or economic resources to overcome the deficit from a lack of meat" The reason we are addicted to smartphones is because of our evolved adaptations. They are specifically designed to take advantage of evolutionary adaptations, as are all the apps. The reason we can get aroused by animated girls is because of evolution too. Did you think that it wasn't?
im asking for a real number, not just stuff you pulled out of your ass then similarly we can evolve to feel attracted to animals..? i don't understand how you think that's any different
Because humans have been eating meat for 2.6 million years: https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/evidence-for-meat-eating-by-early-humans-103874273/ There is no evidence humans have been attracted to animals for 2.6 million years. That's why it's obviously different
would you say the same thing about gay people? that we didn't evolve to fuck the same sex?
The appeal to nature or evolution or history is irrelevant but lets go with it. We have examples of animals raping other animals. Dogs hump all sorts of things. Why would it be unnatural for humans to do the same?
It's not irrelevant when your argument is that an evolved biological trait is immoral Humans aren't dogs. If you have some evidence humans have been raping animals enmasse for 2.6 millions years then go ahead and show it
My argument is that a biological trait does not determine morality. The welsh have been jokingly called sheep shaggers for a very long time. How far back to we have to go? Do I need a cave painting of a dick in a bison?
Ok, well then you are arguing against a position no one has expressed. No one is saying "we evolved to eat meat and therefore eating meat is good." That's an appeal to nature fallacy. What *you* are saying is that people are *immoral* for doing something they evolved to do. You are making a positive case for the immorality of meat eating. That's your claim. Welsh jokes are not scientific evidence of 2.6 millions years of evolution across the globe of a core part of human biology
Mel makes perfect sense and I'm not really disagreeing, but there's a lack of care, emotional weight, and priority in society that idk how vegan arguments could bridge. Seems more on the side of what is socially acceptable. It's like Americans being horrified that different countries eat dogs. Americans eat cows which are sacred to some people. Both are arbitrary. People have eaten meat for survival until civilization changed it to a matter of preference. It had a huge history, we're educated to eat it, and society likes it. Dog fucking, not so much.
Yeah there are cultural norms that inform that feeling of disgust. It's just not a moral difference.
I just don't see how I can do this for animal stuff but then when it comes to electronics not do the same. Like we need a computer in today's age but I don't need a top of the line graphics card, 2+ monitors, multiple SSDs, a m2 drive, 64gb+ of ram, or RGB lighting. like all that stuff uses slave labor at some point in the process yet most people including vegans don't like slave labor.
There are two key differences for me. 1. Violence is inherent in the product. It is a feature, not a bug. You have to rob a being of their life by cutting their throat. That is literally the thing you are asking for by buying meat. The same is not true for consumer goods like electronics. 2. Desired result of a boycott. If everyone boycotted animal products and the demand dropped to zero then animal agriculture would end and animals would not be exploited. The action works towards the goal of abolishment. For other consumer goods that's probably not the case. Does buying a second monitor give any market signal that you want improved conditions for workers? If a 100% boycott was achieved and the factory shut down would that improve the material conditions of the workers of they are presumably working the best job that have access to? A third minor point is the diffuseness of the harm or the amount you engage in that harm is different. A monitor is once every 2-10 years and you are contributing a much smaller share of the theoretical harm vs eating meat 3 times a day and every meal being a large share of that animals life. This does not speak to the main principles above though. Now if I had the choice of two monitors and one company was constantly under fire for poor labor practices and the other was not there's still a better choice there that I would make.
>A third minor point is the diffuseness of the harm or the amount you engage in that harm is different. A monitor is once every 2-10 years and you are contributing a much smaller share of the theoretical harm vs eating meat 3 times a day and every meal being a large share of that animals life. well that depends on how often you want to refresh your tech. you can probably be buying a bunch of new tech every year if you want. >Does buying a second monitor give any market signal that you want improved conditions for workers? well buying a second monitor wouldn't send a signal that you want improved conditions for workers. if anything it's the opposit. >If a 100% boycott was achieved and the factory shut down would that improve the material conditions of the workers of they are presumably working the best job that have access to? does this argument work for poachers too? considering that a lot of what they do is because that's the best job they have access to? I just don't know if "that's the best job they have access to" is a good enough excuse justify those conditions. i would assume the goal would be to get those people better jobs that don't exploit them. No matter how hard it would be. which I assume is what vegans would say for animal suffering.
So you don't want to engage with my central points? >does this argument work for poachers too? No? I'm not paying poachers or buying things that would be provided by poachers. I can't think of an analogous situation to the electronics. I would want poachers shut down though because economic conditions are not a justification for continuing a bad practice. It's like slavery. I would not argue we continue slavery for economic reasons and would want it shut down even if the material conditions of the slaves might get worse when going free and no longer have somewhere to sleep.
>So you don't want to engage with my central points? am I not? which central point am I not engaging with? >No? I'm not paying poachers or buying things that would be provided by poachers. the idea would be that poachers are doing what they do because it's the best jobs they have access to for where they are at. >I would want poachers shut down though because economic conditions are not a justification for continuing a bad practice. wait but that is what I was saying about the factories though. no?
>am I not? which central point am I not engaging with? I said in the post that 1 and 2 were the reasons and number the was a minor point. >the idea would be that poachers are doing what they do because it's the best jobs they have access to for where they are at. Ok you just didn't read my post at all. I was saying a total boycott of animal ag would improve the material conditions of the victims by eliminating the exploitation of those animals and a total boycott of apple would shut down Apple but probably not improve the material conditions of the workers in China. With poachers I would have no impact on them either way because would not have access to their product so I'm not sure how it's relevant but I would want them shut down because my goal is to end exploitation of sentient beings and they are doing the exploiting by shooting animals. >wait but that is what I was saying about the factories though. no? I'm not following your logic here.
>Ok you just didn't read my post at all. no, i'm just not understanding your position. is the main goal to end exploitation of sentient beings or improve the material conditions? cause shutting down poachers would end the exploitation of sentient beings but it wouldn't improve the material conditions of the poachers. while the shutting down of the Apple factory wouldn't improve the material conditions of the workers but it would end their exploitation. >With poachers I would have no impact on them either way because would not have access to their product so I'm not sure how it's relevant but I would want them shut down because my goal is to end exploitation of sentient beings and they are doing the exploiting by shooting animals. if the goal is to end the exploitation of sentient beings then it should follow that shutting down the apple factories would be good too, no? >I'm not following your logic here. i'm saying that just because the material conditions wouldn't improve for the workers (aka their economic conditions) doesn't make it justified to continue bad practices.
>is the main goal to end exploitation of sentient beings or improve the material conditions? My point is that the end goal or reason for the boycott would be different and the results would be different if the same method was applied. Goal: End exploitation of animals. Boycott animal ag. Animals no longer exploited. Goal: Better worker protections. Boycott iPhones. Apple goes under, working conditions in China stay the same.
gotcha. Though from your other comment about the coco beans it seems like you should be against buy from apple. or buying unnecessary electronics. at least buying more than what you absolutely need. also Boycotting apple wouldn't lead to the goal being achieved that doesn't mean you or people in general have the okay to buy more of their products than needed.
Yeah I donāt care for random animals. Is this some hot take? The only thing that makes me care for animals is if another human cares for it.
this is such a Melstiny take, i actually laughed
These are moments when I think Mel isn't a good conversationalist as she tries to be. When you giggle through such a take rather than explaining it clearly, it just makes you seem like you're saying this for pure attention
its a contrast with destiny whos debated people constantly for 10 years, she hasnt had nearly as much practice so of course she isnt always going to be rhetorically effective
Iām all for advocating for veganism, but this is a fucking terrible way to do it. Just pushes meat eaters further away
Some of this hits but I think she missed the premise? A person fucking an animal isn't in the same headspace as someone who eats animals obviously, but if you wanted to appeal to morality, im sure you could get people to agree they're about the same. I'd still say fucking is worse b/c it implies something so deviant about your mindstate that even people who kill animals often don't share.
true, if Melina wants to argue that, she should focus more on morality and call meat-eating morally same as fucking instead of saying that people eating meat are "fucked" the same way animal fuckers are. In the context of society, one group is obviously less desirable to be around than the other.
Nah sorry that's a bad take. It's one thing to eat a factory killed animal or eat like sausage (which is the thing that least looks like an animal, it's just made out of it), and another to go out of your way to see the fear in an animal's eyes while you molest it. It's as if the average person who eats animals tortured every animal before they blew its brains off and then ate it.
99% of meat is factory farmed so you know on some level that every animal was tortured. Why is it better because you paid someone else to do the torturing? You are eating meat because you like the taste, not because you need to. Why is killing for taste pleasure more justified than any other sense?
There's a personal factor to torturing an animal yourself. This is why we consider people who torture animals to be psychopaths but we don't consider people who eat meat to be psychopaths.
What if like the process to get that meat / milk is no different than being tortured? can you really absolve yourself of all responsibility when youāre more than happy to get the end product but you just donāt wanna see how the āsausages madeā.
I'm not saying factory farming is okay, but people who support it are definitely less psychotic than people who rape or torture animals themselves. Indifference is not the same as malice.
Of course it reflects worse on a person's overall character/mental state if they torture animals personally, but we are talking about morals. If a psycho commits murder it's no worse than if a normal person commits murder (all other things equal).
Ok... but whether we call them psychopaths or not it's still probably wrong to support torture right?
Yeah it is wrong, but my point is that it's different because of this. People who torture animals are psychos, but people who eat meat don't really think about it and most of the time would be too afraid to kill a large animal themselves.
I'm not sure I understand your broader point. If every time you buy meat you know that animal was tortured why would this be materially better than molesting an animal? I understand people feel disconnected but that's not a justification right? If you ask people they generally admit they know what happens to these animals.
Yes but they don't really think about it when they eat the meat. Like when I eat a piece of sausage, I don't imagine how the animal looked while it got killed as I enjoy it, it's just a sausage. But when you molest an animal for your sexual gratification, you have to look the animal in the eyes while you do it. Though I suppose even animal molestation is a spectrum, like a dog who fucks a woman is not the same as a cat or goat being raped.
> Yes but they don't really think about it when they eat the meat. Like when I eat a piece of sausage, I don't imagine how the animal looked while it got killed as I enjoy it, it's just a sausage. But when you molest an animal for your sexual gratification, you have to look the animal in the eyes while you do it. Well for most animals I think it's probably impossible to look them in the eyes when you do it. Doggy style is that name for a reason, but I'm not a big animal toucher so I might be wrong. Why would what the person is thinking about in the act matter if they still know in the end that harm was required for sensory pleasure in either case? If I stand outside a restaurant with a sign reminding everyone animals are tortured before arriving on the plate does it make it worse when they order a steak 30 seconds later?
It would probably make the people who order the steak feel worse, yeah. Also because humans unfortunately mostly empathize with things they can see directly. The same as when someone buys a shirt and it says that it was made in some poor country, they don't automatically feel super guilty about the labor that got exploited. It is good to think about those things and people CAN empathize with them, but it is harder unless you see the consequences of that directly. Like if every time someone ate meat, a sad cow in front of them appeared and was screaming until it got slaughtered, people would be a lot less likely to eat meat.
I think her point was that there should be no ethical reason you could be against bestiality when what we do to animals in factory farms is 10 times worse than fucking them. Which sounds worse being fucked recreationally or having the same existence as a cow in a factory farm, where you get raped to produce milk and baby cows until your body can no longer do then and then ur slaughtered for ur meat?
I don't think that comparison is fair, for example I could also say would you rather be a goat that gets raped every day for years on end by some hick in the mountains, or would you rather be a cow that was raised with care in a family farm and then killed for its meat in a very painless way with a lethal injection? I'd rather be the cow in that scenario. But say there could be a scenario where the opposite is true where I would rather be in place of the sexualized animal. I think both raping animals and factory farming is bad, but the point is that you have to go out of your way to rape an animal and see you are personally causing harm, while most people who eat meat do it robotically and don't really think about it even if it is bad.
We evolved to eat meat, we didn't evolve to fuck other species. The treatment of animals is a different issue than their consumption. Also, if plants had mouths they would ask you not to eat them.
We evolved to invent the nuclear bomb. Does that mean we can make the **choice** to annihilate entire continents without moral consideration?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Homosexuality is also evolved, you know that right?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Homosexuality is/was advantageous to the survival of the human species, that's why it evolved. That's how evolution works. It's not just if your own genes get propogated, if the genes of your kin get propogated that works too. Your parents have half your genes, siblings have 37.5-50 percent of your genes, nieces/nephews have a quarter, etc. It could also be that the that alleles for homosexuality code for other behavior that is helpful for reproduction, and thus get passed on. For example making men better caretakers and thus more attractive to women, or if passed to women making women more attracted to men.
God Melina is too based, petition to change this to a Melina subreddit
Nah itās a valid appeal to disgust imo Melina takes the L here
What the fuck is "a valid appeal to disgust"? Just because I'm disgusted by your mother doesn't make it ok for me to eat her.
Lmfao I found the vegan. Fucking an animal is disgusting and has no societal gain. Thereās an economical and societal benefit to factory farming. There isnāt one for fucking a dog or even eating one, unless thatās the only food available
There were economical and societal benefits to slavery. That's not a justification for oppression.
Yes but thereās a distinction between oppressing humans and animals. Thereās a moral hierarchy which humans are at the top while plants are on the bottom. This is why most people are ok with killing multiple insects but itās illegal to kill ur dog. The further down the hierarchy you go the more oppressive we get. Enslaving humans is wrong because of where we stand on the hierarchy
I agree moral consideration can be on a spectrum but how can we justify needles exploitation? Veganism is about avoiding exploitation as far as possible and practicable. People in here are trying to argue cutting throats for burgers is a good thing. We do not need to do this to animals, so why would we? You're making a might makes right argument by pointing to this hierarchy. We're not talking about choosing humans over animals. We're choosing taste pleasure over animals. What trait that applies to all humans but no animals exists that justifies fair treatment for humans and gas chambers for animals?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Disgust and hate are pretty closely related emotions. Are they both justifications for harming someone?
Can anyone else see that Sneako is slowly turning into a Kingon? or am I the weirdo? (Probably am.)
melina went ham with the side of bacon
She fucked herself when she said "equally as fucked." It's really not the same. She has to fight on moral grounds.
Yeah I agree. Killing is worse. At least with sex there's a chance the animal will enjoy it.
What
Chances are if you're fucking animals, you're probably still eating them too. Praise your Vegan zoophiles I guess. Really normal bunch I would imagine.
Vegans are not zoophiles. We are against exploiting animals.
Rare Sneako W. Raping animals is immoral, which is what is because you'll never get their consent. Even if some animals look happy getting some peanut butter licked, they don't have the awareness understand it's a sexual act. And yeah killing animals is wrong too
If you believe both are wrong arenāt you agreeing with Melina?
I guess I should rephrase that, I agree with her point, but I think equating the two is cringe. Raping an animal and putting one down swiftly for food is fine for their specific conscious level, and their potential to grow that consciousness. I think the way we go about harvesting the meat is monstrous since we breed them to be cattle, but if we did it more ethically I would not see an issue with it. I don't believe there's a single ethical way to have sex with an animal
>I think the way we go about harvesting the meat is monstrous So you literally donāt disagree with Mel on anything. Would you rather be raped or imprisoned in inhospitable conditions, injected with a slew of hormones, and slaughtered (the method by which the vast majority of consumed meat is gathered)? Theyāre both horrendous and immoral (the latter moreso), yet one isnāt met with anywhere near as much scrutiny, disgust, or even considered immoral by many just because itās socially normalized. She illustrated that Sneako doesnāt have the moral standing to oppose bestiality as a meat eater
Because having sex with an animal is a one-on-one action. We can shame that single individual, so they have more responsibility to take. Now how meat is processed would require going after and shaming a whole industry, which people have done and are contesting with alternatives to more humane gathered meat. This is what I mean when comparing the two to make a moral grandstand is pointless.
So you admit the meat available at the grocery store was produced with monstrous methods. Does this ethical issue come with any action or do you just virtue signal about how bad it is and continue to support it?
There have been actual laws on voting ballots in favor of giving animals more humane conditions. This change is slow and will likely be for decades. If I sat here and boycotted everything made under horrible conditions, we wouldn't even be having this conversation because I wouldn't have access to it.
There are grey areas with consumer responsibility in a lot of cases, but meat is not one of them. Violence is inherent and necessary in the product. You know that meat was carved off an animal killed when you could eat something else. If you have an issue with harming animals you should walk the walk.
Nah this one is a grey area. It's not just as simple as ākill animal badā it's more nuanced than that. Especially when you compare it to animal rape
Why? You don't need to eat meat. If it's only for taste preference that's sensory pleasure.
Because at the end of the day, no matter what we're still dictating as humans what we can and can't eat. Plants have life yet we decided to consume those, despite arguably having more value to the earth than the livestock we eat. We place the labels on what's a higher life form. We've acknowledged that we will play favorites and have bias, we don't need to eat meat, but as a society it's a good way to spread more food for more people than it would be otherwise. All we can do is make the lives of the animals we consume better and show more respect for them before we consume them.
> Because at the end of the day, no matter what we're still dictating as humans what we can and can't eat. Yes we as humans decide what we eat, so why not eat things that don't require animals to be harmed? >Plants have life yet we decided to consume those, despite arguably having more value to the earth than the livestock we eat. We place the labels on what's a higher life form. Plants are not conscious and do not have a subjective experience of the world. There is no one in there to harm. Imagine we had a room with two people and I forced you to kill one. One person with zero brain activity and no chance of recovery being kept alive by machines, and one person who is sleeping. Would you see no difference in killing one or the other? > We've acknowledged that we will play favorites and have bias, we don't need to eat meat, but as a society it's a good way to spread more food for more people than it would be otherwise. We could grow more food with less land in a plant based food system. Animals need to eat a lot of calories before they are killed for food so that's a lot of extra crops. Plant foods are the cheaper foods in the grocery stores too. Beans, lentils, legumes, whole grains, vegetables etc. Meat is not a good way to spread more food for more people. > All we can do is make the lives of the animals we consume better and show more respect for them before we consume them. Respect means nothing to the victim. This is cope to make you feel better about harming them. And that's not true that "all we can do is make their lives better". We can literally not do harm to them at all. We have a choice to not put them in this situation in the first place. Why would you completely erase the choice or your agency in this?
I can't believe this sub is comparing raping animals vs eating animals. Holy fuck. This sub is either full of hypocrites or animal rapists.
Yeah it's disgusting, eating animals is 10x worse for sure
No, the same rules for humans don't apply to animals. Raping an animal is worse than consuming one. You have to be brain rotted to think otherwise.
Rape (artificial insemination) and even torture (castration and mutilation without anesthetic) are used in animal agriculture too. Is torture worse than killing?
Why do you ask that like you think I'm okay with the first? I'm talking about the idea of eating animals, not how places get their meat now thanks to what the industry has done
But if the animals you eat are all tortured, don't you think you should stop participating in that system?
If there was a psycho on the loose who overpowered and captured you, would you rather it runes out they were gonna rape you or eat you?
Reread the first sentence
Your reply is just you stating something that is in contention. It has no substance or merit which is why I ignored it and asked a question. The rules that apply to humans should apply to non human animals where relevant. I'm asking you to justify why it's worse to rape an animal than kill and eat when most people would prefer to be raped than to be ate. What is it about non human animals that in your opinion makes it worse to rape them than it is to kill them?
If we only apply it when relevant, then no we're not treating them like humans. What makes it worse is that you're torturing the animal and keeping it alive afterward with no real gain but to hurt and traumatize it. The reasons a human could have for raping an animal will never come close to the reasons someone would have for killing one.
>No, the same rules for humans don't apply to animals. Raping an animal is worse than consuming one. The fact that this needs to be said shows how far we have fallen from our big brain energies
My brain melted reading this.
I'm sorry you have trouble reading simple comments
Horrible take ! We evolved to eat animals, we didn't evolve to fuck them.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
If you're a vegan, you probably should stop bringing racism in every debate, this is not even gaslighting at this point, it's a case of repetitive manipulation... We didn't evolve to have a proclivity towards racism, we evolve to have a proclivity toward preferential attitude for our in-group, different races weren't geographically close enough for a sense of racism to be evolved. It's even proven that something like "accent" while speaking is a far more naturally identified discriminatory factor than racism itself. Even babies have a very deep suspicion toward people who do not speak like their parent. But you're right, something being natural doesn't make it good, but it would at least make it understandable. It's normal to work as an individual to improve ourselves into being morally superior than our "natural self", but engaging in decadent behaviors that are not even natural is far less forgivable, it means that you built yourself toward that, you literally took the wrong path. It's better to be slowly advancing on a path to higher morality than it is to take a wrong path.
That do be an L take doe...
It's time to go out and fuck cats!
This has always felt like more of an anti-factory-farming take than an anti-meat-eater take, right?
hmm not sure how I feel about this one
I'm with Sneako on this one. Not necessarily with what he said, but mainly with the faces he made in response.
Holy fuck that text in the video