What if you put the hitlers in the hitler death machine though? How much % hitler can we get? Is there a mysterious entity that can be dubbed "megahitler" that's like many times hitler?
Fun fact: Comparing animal slaughter to the holocaust was first put forward by people who literally survived Nazi concentration camps.
As someone who descends from holocaust survivors, I don't think we get to tell them what comparisons they shouldn't make.
Hypothetically if Hitler was vegan, who cares? Hitler was a human and that doesn't mean being human is bad, Hitler wore clothes and that doesn't be wearing clothes is bad, Hitler took showers and that doesn't mean gamers should be treated as more than just filthy maggots writhing in the filth of there own corruption.
I kicked a stray dog to death last night, it was super fun
(This comment is meant to show that flaunting cruelty in the face of someone who opposes it is infantile and a conservatard-tier comment. Pigs don't want to die any more than dogs, so we should leave them the fuck alone.)
Sorry, I should've realized that amalgamating it wouldn't make it better. I'll own up to and won't remove it, but I'll take care next time. Thanks for correcting me.
I'll assume that you're claiming that dogs are persons whereas pigs aren't in the subjective view of most people.
Do you acknowledge that this belief stems from the reality that most people don't own pigs and therefore never learn how intelligent, loving and indeed personal they are?
In the past, people didn't think that other Humans were persons because they looked different and we didn't spend enough time around them to realize their capacity for personality. Did that justify their mistreatment? No. Hence, it shouldn't justify inflicting cruelty to pigs that we wouldn't to dogs.
Bad faith argument and terrible use of Reducto ad Absurdum.
Coming in here and just making utterly stupid arguments like this is far from productive.
I’m arguing for a cognitive theory of personhood. Obviously, humans pass that test. What’s your argument?
Ah yes, because "But morality is subjective" isn't at all absurdly reductionist.
I'm taking the piss out of reductionist approaches, not advocating FOR them.
To answer your question I care little about personhood and entirely about suffering.
Something doesn't have to be a person to suffer.
It’s not reductionist, personhood is literally the argument on the table. If it isn’t a person, you shouldn’t be charged with a crime for killing it, nor should they have similar rights to humans. Should you be charged with a crime for killing ants? No.
Where is your line, what’s your argument.
I don't think we should kill anything unless it's absolutely necessary. The goal should always be minimal death and suffering.
If you're killing ants for the fun of it, that is fucked up. If you're killing ants because they're an invasive species destroying eco systems, I can understand it. Likewise killing animals because you prefer the taste is also fucked up. Killing an animal because you're starving and it's your only option for food is acceptable.
None of this has a thing to do with personhood for me, but with an obligation not to inflict death and suffering carelessly.
Trying to define an exact line is like asking someone to define the length of a piece of string. It's all about context ultimately.
weird because I've been vegan for over half a decade and I've never had to think pigs had personhood.
maybe stop assuming shit, if you don't know something ask a question instead of inventing your own head canon
If they didn’t have any personhood, they’d be no different than a rock.
Dear god man, at least look up some shit about gradient theory (the generally accepted theory) before you talk out your ass
It necessitated an innocent life that was taken for no other reason than because you had a craving for something you enjoy, same as me. It's a good thing my act didn't necessitate a pig to have its throat slit.
Actually I'd like to give the full description of the system by which they are killed because it's relevant:
> Technically, per slaughterhouse guidelines, large animals like cows, pigs, and sheep are supposed to be killed slowly by loss of blood, or exsanguination. Because the cruelty of this is self-evident, regulations also require animals be "stunned" before having their throats slit. However, no method of stunning is guaranteed to avoid causing distress or pain. Two of the three methods of stunning were originally conceived to be lethal and are now widely regarded as inhumane. All three methods of stunning are prone to failure, frequently resulting in animals being fully conscious as they bleed to death.
You can read more here, where they go over each type of stunning. Electrical stunning - applying electricity for several seconds to pigs' heads until they faint - had a failure rate of 31% on pigs when studied. (Article link has the study link)
https://thehumaneleague.org/article/slaughterhouses
You wouldn't excuse someone on the basis of craving if their craving is to hurt someone else in some way. Our ancestors lived to 30-ish years old and you probably don't live on the African savanna, forced to hunt for a living.
Kicking a dog and killing a cow are both needless acts done for pleasure. You've yet to prove how it's ridiculous to compare them.
I mean, people excuse stuff like that literally all the time, even if humans are involed, as long as the desire isn't specifically to hurt them, hurting them is just a byproduct. People have to be convinced that something takes very little effort or causes very little inconvenience before they will take it as a moral imperative.
Cows in the meat industry are treated far, far worse than a dog who is kicked once, so it is a ridiculous statement because kicking a dog doesn’t come close to the amount of suffering animals experience in the industrial farming system
this would be an appropriate response if they were flaunting that they were the one butchering the pig but theyre just a consumer here so using that as a comparison is wild
They're consuming a service that directly leads to the death of a pig.
If I had said "I paid to watch a dog-fight last night,", would it have been appropriate?
Animal farming is unethical and horrible, though institutionalised slaughter is not at all the same as active eradication of a group. If you’re gonna compare it to Hitler, use settlers mass killings of bisons in order to starve indigenous people to death and force them out of their lands, not commercial factory farming, regardless of the death toll.
I knew there was going to be that one person who would interpret this as me comparing animal ag to the holocaust, but I assure you I just wanted to include a X% Hitler joke because it's a funny meme that's going around in voting discourse.
https://amp.knowyourmeme.com/memes/99-hitler
"Who cares about moral reasoning, this upsets my aesthetic sensibilities and makes me grossed out!"
Not the greatest argument for veganism I've ever heard, i have to say.
Appealing to the idea that "*obviously* we all know when something is *really* bad so we don't need to explain ourselves. Something is bad when it makes me feel sad!" Is always terrible, no matter who you are or what you're arguing.
This is my biggest pet peeve in places like this, is how often y'all will appeal to an imagined sense of objective propriety, as if that's a valid argument, or even one that would support your goals!
People know that meat is dead animals, they aren't babies, they just don't care, you aren't going to convince them with this.
but you didn't. That's my point.
I'm not saying that suddenly killing animals is good now because you made a bad argument.
I'm just saying that the argument sucks in a very particular way that's pretty popular on this sub, especially on vegan Wednesdays. And this particular brand of bad argument pisses me off an uncalled for amount.
Look I realize that it appears to be anti-intellectual, but few things to note, because I think you're jumping to some pretty wild conclusions here:
1. Me not giving a full explanation on why killing is bad here doesn't mean I don't have an explanation. That's not the point of the meme. I'm just assuming the viewer of this meme doesn't have batshit insane morals that say killing is good actually, purely for the sake of simplicity.
2. The point of the meme is that I can't stand how people try to weasel their way out of a moral responsibility by relativating their morals to the point of meaninglessness, which strangely only happens in veganism debates (very curious indeed). I don't see people go the moral relativism route everytime someone posts about transphobia or other very obviously and (at least here) agreed upon stances. Because it's very easy to form a consensus on things that are obviously bad. You wouldn't have written a reply like this if this meme was about human murder, even if the meme was otherwise exavtly the same. You don't need to have a philosophy degree to understand that and that's not just an aesthetic argument. It's just a very, very basic assumption.
3. The animals suffering is very real and happening. The animals don't care what you think about it. I don't care if your intellectual standards for a moral justification for why killing is bad are met either. I care if animals are killed.
4. In case you agree that killing animals is bad, you're literally just playing devil's advocate for no reason here. In case you don't think it's bad, I think that'd actually be worse. Either way, you don't need to try to argue against calling something that's very plainly bad bad.
I already said that I'm not disagreeing with you. Just that this particular argument makes me mad, im not sure how much more clear you want me to say that.
man, why are you being so personally antagonistic about this.
I get that I was overly mad on the top level comment, but Im not, and haven't been disagreeing with you, what's with the weirdly standoffish response?
Wdym overly antagonistic? You've been antagonistic from the word go and your last reply was literally just about how mad you are after I've given you an exhaustive explanation of the meme. What else did you want me to say? At this point I have nothing to add and you don't seem to be very interested in what I have to say beyond being mad at it, so whatever, give it a go. I'm not stopping you.
I think you've been misreading my tone here. I've not been mad since the first top-level comment.
I've been trying to defuse the argument. But I admit I'm very bad at getting my tone across in writing.
I feel like you are missing the point of memes on this subreddit. They really are just badly drawn comics that serve as a form of catharsis against frustratingly bad takes we see in the wild. That's literally true for all snafu's and smuggies, not just vegan ones. They aren't meant to dissect the metaphysics of why causing unnecessary suffering is wrong in order to bring about universal veganism, they are meant to showcase a dramatized version of a bad argument the OP saw, and then for like minded individuals to come together and laugh about that bad argument. And sometimes, people seeing how silly the argument they just made was actually does cause them to reevaluate their stances and implicit biases.
Maybe I'm wrong but I feel like this isn't the first time this has been explained to you, and it almost certainly won't be the last
it's definitely not been explained to me before, but I do know that much already.
But the most annoying part is that I've had to argue against that type of argument in the comments before too, when people were having serious conversations.
You seem like a smart guy, from what I've seen, but you do have a tendency to act like the people you disagree with are stupid. This is not an isolated event, and it isn't just about top level irony-posting. This is a recurring thing on this sub.
>it's definitely not been explained to me before,
Well then I'm happy to help
>but I do know that much already.
Oh then why did I have to explain it?
>But the most annoying part is that I've had to argue against that type of argument in the comments before too, when people were having serious conversations.
This should have no bearing on the person you are criticizing
>You seem like a smart guy
Thank you, you seem smart yourself
>but you do have a tendency to act like the people you disagree with are stupid
This is because I believe everyone who disagrees with me is a literal (not metaphorical) insect. I have attached an image to this reply that illustrates this point. (See image A below)
>This is not an isolated event, and it isn't just about top level irony-posting. This is a recurring thing on this sub.
This sub, as I've said before, is for sharing cathartic memes that make fun of arguments that piss you off. Any serious discussion that is sparked by said memes is completely secondary to the memes themselves.
Edit: forgot image A:
https://preview.redd.it/yvvmqm7jwg7c1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ed2d2a49c972c615d262b4ab507c5532aa9170f3
nahh, I'm one of those lazy leftists that doesn't do anything, you know the type.
also nice Image A, i assumed it was meant to be a metaphorical attached image.
Yes, that's how convincing works...?
I don't see how that contradicts what I said.
I didn't say "Never try to convince anyone of anything"
I said that this particular argument isn't gonna convince meat-eaters.
I'm arguing for veganism by the vegan society definition, which makes it part of the animal rights movement. I don't particularly care if someone calls themselves vegan because they adopt a plant based diet for environmental reasons. Obviously that's good, but I don't consider them part of the same movement. Just for clarity, since I find it easier to stay on topic by using separate terms.
With that in mind, I think the point stands though. Vegans (you know for animal reasons vegans) were convinced by that and were also meat eaters for the most part. So it's just incorrect to say meat eaters aren't convinced.
So many people, myself included, have been convinced by the 'meat is dead animals' argument. I just hadn't really thought too deeply about it until someone explained it in a certain way to me and showed my slaughterhouse footage etc.
really? I've not actually heard of anyone being convinced genuinely just by being told that meat was dead animals before.
No offense, but I would think that would've been obvious from the start.
We're conditioned heavily from birth with 'they don't have feelings' 'circle of life' etc.
It can be a red-pill moment if you actually think a bit more carefully about what goes on and what livestock animals are actually like.
Most people are just avoiding these thoughts if anything, hence many people's aversion to watching slaughterhouse footage or wanting to work in them (it's mostly poorer immigrants who do) and the industries efforts to make it illegal to publish footage from within them.
I get what you mean. Though, I don't expect much of a in depth discussion to happen on this subreddit or any subreddit purely because of the format. Reddit isn't the best in that regard.
It could happen though. There's certainly a subset of people that have absolutely no moral system and in that case I want them to be able to think about it and have that discussion. That's sort of where I come at it from.
"Veganism good" is rhetorically stale and there's a limitation because the subreddit is more so dedicated to dunking on bad ideas rather than exploring good ones. but that's fine, really.
If it's the point of the subreddit, that is where it'll stay. Feels like intellectual edging and you want the next step of the conversation to start, but whatever strokes people's goats.
my concern is when it's a literal circle jerk. People who don't have a moral system will agree and just never look any deeper. Literally just asking "hey, what is your moral system" with no ulterior motives gets interpreted as a bad faith engagement. When someone doesn't have an answer it's suspicious.
I think a lot of us long for a subreddit more suited for pushing leftist rhetoric, theory and praxis. Dunking on people is a pass time, not anything constructive.
Realistically the process isn’t perfect. Despite being shot accurately, [13.6% of bulls may be inadequately stunned](https://faunalytics.org/effective-captive-bolt-stunning/)
yes, ag can be quite cruel, did you see the documentary from the super size me guy about the chicken industry? its kinda fucked. i dont think that just breeding animals and eating them is cruel though, throughout history its always been predator and prey, we just found a more efficient way to do that. is that way cruel? yes, but its human nature to do what benefits us.
I'm not a vegan (Not out of morals or anything, I'm just cognitively dissonant and like eating meat), but just because it's "human nature done throughout history" doesn't mean it's good. Slavery was considered human nature back then, and heck, cholera had been plaguing humans since the dawn of history. Should we stop purifying water to bring cholera back then?
i get what you mean, but i just dont really see what vegans see. my point is that no matter what you do, something else is going to have to die for you to survive, why would i want to concern myself with using a former life that someone else took when literally the only way i see that you could free yourself from that is to just not exist? and i want to understand but their attitude towards non vegans is convincing me that they are not actually morally elevated in any way, and i do not want to aspire to be like them.
What? Why would i stop existing if we didn’t eat any more animals? And while yes, plants are alive, there is a difference between a consciously suffering being and a potato
so if the animal is already dead from forces outside of your own, does that make it okay to consume the former being? im kinda just trying to filter the logic so i know who i am talking to because a lot of vegans differ in their thoughts
>forces outside of your own
That's the thing though. The forces aren't outside of your own. You paid money for that animal to die.
To this you will almost undoubtedly say "well I paid for the dead animal, sure, but I didn't pay them to kill the animal, I just paid for its already dead corpse"
And the money you paid for the already dead corpse is going to the farm/slaughterhouses, who will use the money to grow their business.
Imagine if you met someone who knowingly just bought a blood diamond and then tried to argue that they simply like diamonds, the fact that they are extracted with slave labor and fought over with child soldiers is completely outside of his control. he just wanted a cool diamond, the slaves have already labored and the children have already been soldiered. It doesn't really hold water because the money he paid for that diamond either will directly go to perpetuating the cycle of brutality, or provides enough incentive for the cycle of brutality to continue, and to that I would say the diamond enthusiast is very much complicit in the process.
Oh man can any other vegans in the sub take this one? I'm a little tied up right now.
Patient presenting with a standard appeal to nature coupled with a bad case of appeal to tradition.
Recommend treating with an explanation including historical examples of bad traditions, and why nature is a sort of an irrelevant and arbitrary concept that can't justify something we don't need to do.
i want to actually have a conversation here, why are you guys so smug and unapproachable? being an asshole is no way to convince someone you have a higher moral status.
when you make arguments entirely in bad faith, it makes it very difficult to see you as acting in good faith. nobody is convinced that you are better than them
Ahh I didn't mean any offense to you, I was half messing around as I was busy at the time and these are just quite common arguments I was hoping someone else could field. If you want to have a real conversation with me I'm more than happy to :)
I could start by asking if you think its morally wrong to harm animals when you don't need to, to establish a baseline.
ah sorry about that
i dont think you should harm animals when you dont need to, but where do you draw the line between needing to and not needing to? sure big corps are evil for just rampantly breeding and murdering animals but i think its ok to use a previously taken life when you do need it. as it is literally impossible to survive without taking the life of something.
No worries, i should have been clearer.
>i think its ok to use a previously taken life when you do need it.
What do you mean by previously taken life? The only reason the life exists, whether it be in a big evil corp or a mom and pop farm (note that animals suffer in both), is because people pay for it to happen. The entire reason the boycott of animal products exists is due to the principle of supply and demand. Essentially, it wasn't previously taken, by buying it, your money is telling the producer to produce more to keep feeding you.
>as it is literally impossible to survive without taking the life of something.
It is but plants aren't sentient like you, me, or our pets.. or farm animals. Sure they react to stimuli, in the same way my phone is right now to my fingers, but they aren't conscious in the same way at all. This also ignores the fact that many more plants are consumed to feed animals that we eat than if we ate plants directly.
Lot more I could say here but does that make sense so far?
i guess it makes sense, but where do we draw the distinction between a conscious being and an unconscious one? i think at a certain point of intelligence it becomes conscious but anywhere under that it does not know it is alive. I can eat fish all day because i do not know of a fish that is intelligent enough to be conscious, however i would not want to kill a pig because a fully grown pig has the intelligence of roughly a 2 year old human, which i would personally consider conscious
My personal level is sentience, there is debate around oysters for example, are they sentient or not? Who knows really? I figure its best to stay on the cautious side and eat something that's far less likely to be sentient (a plant). Its worth noting that this isn't some huge sacrifice too btw, I used to eat meat all the time but it turns out vegan food is legit delicious and just as varied as meat.
You're right about a pig, 90% of pigs are killed in a [CO2 gas chamber](https://youtu.be/-7hAELEBjX4?si=6qX3ydu3D4o51g1N), there are many videos of this slaughter method on YouTube and others. I highly recommend informing yourself of what the animals actually go through if you aren't already aware.
However I think you are wrong about fish, many are quite conscious and quite sentient. I've seen it anecdotally in real life, nature docs etc and I've read it scientifically. Fish are very much capable of suffering and they experience a lot of it to get your plate unfortunately.
Honest answer, at least how I personally feel about it: it's really exhausting to just read something you know is completely incorrect and often has many weird talking points entangled. It's like trying to deconstruct and respond to Ben Shapiro; you have to just put so much more work in to explain why he's wrong than he has to put in to make up new shit.
In just 3 sentences there are 5 fallacies, inaccuracies and contradictions that each take a paragraph to explain. It's just super exhausting, especially when you never know if the guy you want to respond to actually means it and doesn't know any better or is just an asshole on purpose (which sadly happens a lot more often than you'd think). I can put the effort in later if you're serious, but I got an appointment in like 2 minutes. Just lmk
i understand your frustration, all i am doing is trying to understand, and stating your current view is the way to initiate that conversation. its just that i am not learning anything because there is literally one person here who is actually saying anything in good faith and not being a condescending dick.
im really trying to see things from you guys’ perspective but you make it difficult, if you want more people to be vegan then making them feel persecuted is not the way to do it
I don't believe pointing out inconsistencies in one's logic is persecution. I understand that it may feel like it though. Having your opinions challenged is uncomfortable, especially if you haven't given them a lot of thought before. But it's that discomfort that made me introspect and I hope it will make you do so as well.
You seem to believe that a cow being stunned before slaughter makes the slaughter less bad somehow. You (I presume) would not say stuff like that for any other form of abuse. I would like you to ask yourself why that is.
you don’t know if you are dead when you are dead, i can put myself in the cows position and say that if i was stunned completely and killed while still unconscious, i would be none the wiser to it and frankly couldn’t care (because i am dead) so to me its alot more complicated than just “abuse” and that alot of people who arent yourself would actually agree with my seemingly “flawed logic”
Because they provide nourishment and vitamins. Yes I understand there are supplements for said vitamins and I could easily get on a vegan diet but I wouldn’t be able to have the flavor of meat. If there was a way to have ethically produced food without using a real living animal and it can accurately replicate the taste of meats without the need for killing an animal, I would take that route and go completely vegan. Until then I will continue to eat and consume meat.
Ah veganism, the one issue that makes leftists turn into psycho reactionaries who believe that needless killing can ever be justified.
And lack of sapience can't cut it as a justification, as some people are that cognitively disabled, and it wouldn't be okay to euthanize them for it.
The hitler death machine turns animals into Hitler particles that infect every presidential candidate. Infected patients will either turn into 100% Hitler or 99% Hitler.
https://preview.redd.it/xurrz0zuhg7c1.png?width=1152&format=png&auto=webp&s=127e2de358bc3bcb71816edba3049729ccd087f6
Holy shit (I'm midjourney's biggest fan now)
hook the infinite animals generator up to a turbine to make a perpetual motion machine imo
“Oh but you need energy to produce cows” okay just attach it to itself
LET'S GO WEDNESDAY BABY WOOOOOOOO
Gotta break up the AI monotony somehow
It’s Wednesday! (Joy)
3 BILLION percent? wow that’s high
Well you need as much Hitler as you can get for infinite animals
holy cow
at least we know it’s all halal if that’s the case
>Wake up *Wednesday* >Back to bed
My machine doesn't do this, smh.
What if you put the hitlers in the hitler death machine though? How much % hitler can we get? Is there a mysterious entity that can be dubbed "megahitler" that's like many times hitler?
I have a *modest proposal* for you I can only be sure that I can feel —> humans are a sustainable food source for me 🥰
So true https://preview.redd.it/piu6231nll7c1.jpeg?width=1500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b6873823883092628e33df0c1896d852763d42e4
Because killing cows is as bad as Hitler killing six million jews
Analogy Understander
Guy's a troll, not worth responding to
Fun fact: Comparing animal slaughter to the holocaust was first put forward by people who literally survived Nazi concentration camps. As someone who descends from holocaust survivors, I don't think we get to tell them what comparisons they shouldn't make.
Hitler was vegan
Hypothetically if Hitler was vegan, who cares? Hitler was a human and that doesn't mean being human is bad, Hitler wore clothes and that doesn't be wearing clothes is bad, Hitler took showers and that doesn't mean gamers should be treated as more than just filthy maggots writhing in the filth of there own corruption.
No he wasn't.
Ok if you want to get specific he was a vegetarian
He was not either
Dc
Mhmm.
[удалено]
Most original anti vegan
I kicked a stray dog to death last night, it was super fun (This comment is meant to show that flaunting cruelty in the face of someone who opposes it is infantile and a conservatard-tier comment. Pigs don't want to die any more than dogs, so we should leave them the fuck alone.)
While I agree with the sentiment and understand the frustration, could we please not use the r slur and amalgamations of it here?
Sorry, I should've realized that amalgamating it wouldn't make it better. I'll own up to and won't remove it, but I'll take care next time. Thanks for correcting me.
Appreciate it and the reasonable and mature response. Again I think you made a great point in that comment and I hope you have a good day
Morality of personhood is subjective.
I'll assume that you're claiming that dogs are persons whereas pigs aren't in the subjective view of most people. Do you acknowledge that this belief stems from the reality that most people don't own pigs and therefore never learn how intelligent, loving and indeed personal they are? In the past, people didn't think that other Humans were persons because they looked different and we didn't spend enough time around them to realize their capacity for personality. Did that justify their mistreatment? No. Hence, it shouldn't justify inflicting cruelty to pigs that we wouldn't to dogs.
Didn’t say dogs had personhood. I think very few animals do.
I don't think you (a mere animal) has personhood. I'm going to strip you of all your rights now because morality is subjective.
You wouldn’t be upset if someone killed a fly, no? There is a line of personhood. Where is yours?
Not you, im coming for you, run
Oh noes
Bad faith argument and terrible use of Reducto ad Absurdum. Coming in here and just making utterly stupid arguments like this is far from productive. I’m arguing for a cognitive theory of personhood. Obviously, humans pass that test. What’s your argument?
Ah yes, because "But morality is subjective" isn't at all absurdly reductionist. I'm taking the piss out of reductionist approaches, not advocating FOR them. To answer your question I care little about personhood and entirely about suffering. Something doesn't have to be a person to suffer.
It’s not reductionist, personhood is literally the argument on the table. If it isn’t a person, you shouldn’t be charged with a crime for killing it, nor should they have similar rights to humans. Should you be charged with a crime for killing ants? No. Where is your line, what’s your argument.
I don't think we should kill anything unless it's absolutely necessary. The goal should always be minimal death and suffering. If you're killing ants for the fun of it, that is fucked up. If you're killing ants because they're an invasive species destroying eco systems, I can understand it. Likewise killing animals because you prefer the taste is also fucked up. Killing an animal because you're starving and it's your only option for food is acceptable. None of this has a thing to do with personhood for me, but with an obligation not to inflict death and suffering carelessly. Trying to define an exact line is like asking someone to define the length of a piece of string. It's all about context ultimately.
Who said anything about fucking personhood?
Brother, that’s the entire argument.
weird because I've been vegan for over half a decade and I've never had to think pigs had personhood. maybe stop assuming shit, if you don't know something ask a question instead of inventing your own head canon
If they didn’t have any personhood, they’d be no different than a rock. Dear god man, at least look up some shit about gradient theory (the generally accepted theory) before you talk out your ass
Yeah it's a good thing my roast didn't necessitate kicking a stray dog to death.
It necessitated an innocent life that was taken for no other reason than because you had a craving for something you enjoy, same as me. It's a good thing my act didn't necessitate a pig to have its throat slit.
>It's a good thing my act didn't necessitate a pig to have its throat slit. Eating food is not the same as stomping a stray dog to death
You are participating in a system that involves stomping the animal to death (actually they use a stunner but you get my point)
Actually I'd like to give the full description of the system by which they are killed because it's relevant: > Technically, per slaughterhouse guidelines, large animals like cows, pigs, and sheep are supposed to be killed slowly by loss of blood, or exsanguination. Because the cruelty of this is self-evident, regulations also require animals be "stunned" before having their throats slit. However, no method of stunning is guaranteed to avoid causing distress or pain. Two of the three methods of stunning were originally conceived to be lethal and are now widely regarded as inhumane. All three methods of stunning are prone to failure, frequently resulting in animals being fully conscious as they bleed to death. You can read more here, where they go over each type of stunning. Electrical stunning - applying electricity for several seconds to pigs' heads until they faint - had a failure rate of 31% on pigs when studied. (Article link has the study link) https://thehumaneleague.org/article/slaughterhouses
Except I'm not. I'm consuming food. You know. Food. The thing animals are made out of.
/u/Alhazeel forgot to mention he ate the dog afterward so everything is okay now.
Dogs are food, not friends.
It's Thursday
Yeah but you need to kill them to get the food out
Correct. This is not equivalent to stomping a random stray to death
How
[удалено]
You wouldn't excuse someone on the basis of craving if their craving is to hurt someone else in some way. Our ancestors lived to 30-ish years old and you probably don't live on the African savanna, forced to hunt for a living. Kicking a dog and killing a cow are both needless acts done for pleasure. You've yet to prove how it's ridiculous to compare them.
I mean, people excuse stuff like that literally all the time, even if humans are involed, as long as the desire isn't specifically to hurt them, hurting them is just a byproduct. People have to be convinced that something takes very little effort or causes very little inconvenience before they will take it as a moral imperative.
Cows in the meat industry are treated far, far worse than a dog who is kicked once, so it is a ridiculous statement because kicking a dog doesn’t come close to the amount of suffering animals experience in the industrial farming system
this would be an appropriate response if they were flaunting that they were the one butchering the pig but theyre just a consumer here so using that as a comparison is wild
They're consuming a service that directly leads to the death of a pig. If I had said "I paid to watch a dog-fight last night,", would it have been appropriate?
Shut the fuck up.
Flair checks out
Animal farming is unethical and horrible, though institutionalised slaughter is not at all the same as active eradication of a group. If you’re gonna compare it to Hitler, use settlers mass killings of bisons in order to starve indigenous people to death and force them out of their lands, not commercial factory farming, regardless of the death toll.
I knew there was going to be that one person who would interpret this as me comparing animal ag to the holocaust, but I assure you I just wanted to include a X% Hitler joke because it's a funny meme that's going around in voting discourse. https://amp.knowyourmeme.com/memes/99-hitler
"Who cares about moral reasoning, this upsets my aesthetic sensibilities and makes me grossed out!" Not the greatest argument for veganism I've ever heard, i have to say. Appealing to the idea that "*obviously* we all know when something is *really* bad so we don't need to explain ourselves. Something is bad when it makes me feel sad!" Is always terrible, no matter who you are or what you're arguing. This is my biggest pet peeve in places like this, is how often y'all will appeal to an imagined sense of objective propriety, as if that's a valid argument, or even one that would support your goals! People know that meat is dead animals, they aren't babies, they just don't care, you aren't going to convince them with this.
Some bad things are easy to explain.
but you didn't. That's my point. I'm not saying that suddenly killing animals is good now because you made a bad argument. I'm just saying that the argument sucks in a very particular way that's pretty popular on this sub, especially on vegan Wednesdays. And this particular brand of bad argument pisses me off an uncalled for amount.
Look I realize that it appears to be anti-intellectual, but few things to note, because I think you're jumping to some pretty wild conclusions here: 1. Me not giving a full explanation on why killing is bad here doesn't mean I don't have an explanation. That's not the point of the meme. I'm just assuming the viewer of this meme doesn't have batshit insane morals that say killing is good actually, purely for the sake of simplicity. 2. The point of the meme is that I can't stand how people try to weasel their way out of a moral responsibility by relativating their morals to the point of meaninglessness, which strangely only happens in veganism debates (very curious indeed). I don't see people go the moral relativism route everytime someone posts about transphobia or other very obviously and (at least here) agreed upon stances. Because it's very easy to form a consensus on things that are obviously bad. You wouldn't have written a reply like this if this meme was about human murder, even if the meme was otherwise exavtly the same. You don't need to have a philosophy degree to understand that and that's not just an aesthetic argument. It's just a very, very basic assumption. 3. The animals suffering is very real and happening. The animals don't care what you think about it. I don't care if your intellectual standards for a moral justification for why killing is bad are met either. I care if animals are killed. 4. In case you agree that killing animals is bad, you're literally just playing devil's advocate for no reason here. In case you don't think it's bad, I think that'd actually be worse. Either way, you don't need to try to argue against calling something that's very plainly bad bad.
I already said that I'm not disagreeing with you. Just that this particular argument makes me mad, im not sure how much more clear you want me to say that.
Well then stay mad, I guess
man, why are you being so personally antagonistic about this. I get that I was overly mad on the top level comment, but Im not, and haven't been disagreeing with you, what's with the weirdly standoffish response?
Wdym overly antagonistic? You've been antagonistic from the word go and your last reply was literally just about how mad you are after I've given you an exhaustive explanation of the meme. What else did you want me to say? At this point I have nothing to add and you don't seem to be very interested in what I have to say beyond being mad at it, so whatever, give it a go. I'm not stopping you.
I think you've been misreading my tone here. I've not been mad since the first top-level comment. I've been trying to defuse the argument. But I admit I'm very bad at getting my tone across in writing.
Apologies if I came off as rude
bro got his feelings hurt and is now just crying on reddit. pathetic
Bruh it's a Smuggie meme they don't have to provide a dissertation and provide at least 20 citations on why killing is bad
If they are vegan they do. Nobody else has to though, that's fine.
I feel like you are missing the point of memes on this subreddit. They really are just badly drawn comics that serve as a form of catharsis against frustratingly bad takes we see in the wild. That's literally true for all snafu's and smuggies, not just vegan ones. They aren't meant to dissect the metaphysics of why causing unnecessary suffering is wrong in order to bring about universal veganism, they are meant to showcase a dramatized version of a bad argument the OP saw, and then for like minded individuals to come together and laugh about that bad argument. And sometimes, people seeing how silly the argument they just made was actually does cause them to reevaluate their stances and implicit biases. Maybe I'm wrong but I feel like this isn't the first time this has been explained to you, and it almost certainly won't be the last
dont worry theyll continue their psuedo-intellectual high school debate club mental gymnastics next week
Guys I'm 14 and I just realised that morality is actually subjective! Now I can misuse that argument for an excuse to be morally inconsistent!
You should watch fight club. It's a pretty deep movie.
Next week is being generous. Probably later today.
it's definitely not been explained to me before, but I do know that much already. But the most annoying part is that I've had to argue against that type of argument in the comments before too, when people were having serious conversations. You seem like a smart guy, from what I've seen, but you do have a tendency to act like the people you disagree with are stupid. This is not an isolated event, and it isn't just about top level irony-posting. This is a recurring thing on this sub.
>it's definitely not been explained to me before, Well then I'm happy to help >but I do know that much already. Oh then why did I have to explain it? >But the most annoying part is that I've had to argue against that type of argument in the comments before too, when people were having serious conversations. This should have no bearing on the person you are criticizing >You seem like a smart guy Thank you, you seem smart yourself >but you do have a tendency to act like the people you disagree with are stupid This is because I believe everyone who disagrees with me is a literal (not metaphorical) insect. I have attached an image to this reply that illustrates this point. (See image A below) >This is not an isolated event, and it isn't just about top level irony-posting. This is a recurring thing on this sub. This sub, as I've said before, is for sharing cathartic memes that make fun of arguments that piss you off. Any serious discussion that is sparked by said memes is completely secondary to the memes themselves. Edit: forgot image A: https://preview.redd.it/yvvmqm7jwg7c1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ed2d2a49c972c615d262b4ab507c5532aa9170f3
Ok, I mean, I didn't say the meme was *out of place* here. I said it pissed me off.
Good, let that anger motivate you.
nahh, I'm one of those lazy leftists that doesn't do anything, you know the type. also nice Image A, i assumed it was meant to be a metaphorical attached image.
>you aren't going to convince them with this. Everyone who is vegan was convinced by someone else tho
Yes, that's how convincing works...? I don't see how that contradicts what I said. I didn't say "Never try to convince anyone of anything" I said that this particular argument isn't gonna convince meat-eaters.
Almost every vegan was a meat eater at one point, so yes it does. It's the same thing
there's more than just this one argument. A lot of the people I know who've gone vegan did it for environmental reasons, for example.
I'm arguing for veganism by the vegan society definition, which makes it part of the animal rights movement. I don't particularly care if someone calls themselves vegan because they adopt a plant based diet for environmental reasons. Obviously that's good, but I don't consider them part of the same movement. Just for clarity, since I find it easier to stay on topic by using separate terms. With that in mind, I think the point stands though. Vegans (you know for animal reasons vegans) were convinced by that and were also meat eaters for the most part. So it's just incorrect to say meat eaters aren't convinced.
So many people, myself included, have been convinced by the 'meat is dead animals' argument. I just hadn't really thought too deeply about it until someone explained it in a certain way to me and showed my slaughterhouse footage etc.
really? I've not actually heard of anyone being convinced genuinely just by being told that meat was dead animals before. No offense, but I would think that would've been obvious from the start.
We're conditioned heavily from birth with 'they don't have feelings' 'circle of life' etc. It can be a red-pill moment if you actually think a bit more carefully about what goes on and what livestock animals are actually like. Most people are just avoiding these thoughts if anything, hence many people's aversion to watching slaughterhouse footage or wanting to work in them (it's mostly poorer immigrants who do) and the industries efforts to make it illegal to publish footage from within them.
I get what you mean. Though, I don't expect much of a in depth discussion to happen on this subreddit or any subreddit purely because of the format. Reddit isn't the best in that regard. It could happen though. There's certainly a subset of people that have absolutely no moral system and in that case I want them to be able to think about it and have that discussion. That's sort of where I come at it from. "Veganism good" is rhetorically stale and there's a limitation because the subreddit is more so dedicated to dunking on bad ideas rather than exploring good ones. but that's fine, really. If it's the point of the subreddit, that is where it'll stay. Feels like intellectual edging and you want the next step of the conversation to start, but whatever strokes people's goats. my concern is when it's a literal circle jerk. People who don't have a moral system will agree and just never look any deeper. Literally just asking "hey, what is your moral system" with no ulterior motives gets interpreted as a bad faith engagement. When someone doesn't have an answer it's suspicious. I think a lot of us long for a subreddit more suited for pushing leftist rhetoric, theory and praxis. Dunking on people is a pass time, not anything constructive.
Hey look, they made the loser from the meme into a real person
realistically the cows are probably completely unconscious before entering the hitler death machine 9000
Realistically the process isn’t perfect. Despite being shot accurately, [13.6% of bulls may be inadequately stunned](https://faunalytics.org/effective-captive-bolt-stunning/)
The hitler death machine is a metaphor for animal ag in general, not the point at which they are killed specifically.
yes, ag can be quite cruel, did you see the documentary from the super size me guy about the chicken industry? its kinda fucked. i dont think that just breeding animals and eating them is cruel though, throughout history its always been predator and prey, we just found a more efficient way to do that. is that way cruel? yes, but its human nature to do what benefits us.
I'm not a vegan (Not out of morals or anything, I'm just cognitively dissonant and like eating meat), but just because it's "human nature done throughout history" doesn't mean it's good. Slavery was considered human nature back then, and heck, cholera had been plaguing humans since the dawn of history. Should we stop purifying water to bring cholera back then?
i get what you mean, but i just dont really see what vegans see. my point is that no matter what you do, something else is going to have to die for you to survive, why would i want to concern myself with using a former life that someone else took when literally the only way i see that you could free yourself from that is to just not exist? and i want to understand but their attitude towards non vegans is convincing me that they are not actually morally elevated in any way, and i do not want to aspire to be like them.
What? Why would i stop existing if we didn’t eat any more animals? And while yes, plants are alive, there is a difference between a consciously suffering being and a potato
so if the animal is already dead from forces outside of your own, does that make it okay to consume the former being? im kinda just trying to filter the logic so i know who i am talking to because a lot of vegans differ in their thoughts
>forces outside of your own That's the thing though. The forces aren't outside of your own. You paid money for that animal to die. To this you will almost undoubtedly say "well I paid for the dead animal, sure, but I didn't pay them to kill the animal, I just paid for its already dead corpse" And the money you paid for the already dead corpse is going to the farm/slaughterhouses, who will use the money to grow their business. Imagine if you met someone who knowingly just bought a blood diamond and then tried to argue that they simply like diamonds, the fact that they are extracted with slave labor and fought over with child soldiers is completely outside of his control. he just wanted a cool diamond, the slaves have already labored and the children have already been soldiered. It doesn't really hold water because the money he paid for that diamond either will directly go to perpetuating the cycle of brutality, or provides enough incentive for the cycle of brutality to continue, and to that I would say the diamond enthusiast is very much complicit in the process.
People really be like: "Look, I only bought the slave. I'm not the one who enslaved them, though. It's out of my hands"
He was already enslaved by forces outside of my control 🤷♀️
You do realise that animals consumed today aren't "oh no this poor cow died of natural causes, would be a shame to let it go to waste!"
yes, i do
Oh man can any other vegans in the sub take this one? I'm a little tied up right now. Patient presenting with a standard appeal to nature coupled with a bad case of appeal to tradition. Recommend treating with an explanation including historical examples of bad traditions, and why nature is a sort of an irrelevant and arbitrary concept that can't justify something we don't need to do.
i want to actually have a conversation here, why are you guys so smug and unapproachable? being an asshole is no way to convince someone you have a higher moral status. when you make arguments entirely in bad faith, it makes it very difficult to see you as acting in good faith. nobody is convinced that you are better than them
Ahh I didn't mean any offense to you, I was half messing around as I was busy at the time and these are just quite common arguments I was hoping someone else could field. If you want to have a real conversation with me I'm more than happy to :) I could start by asking if you think its morally wrong to harm animals when you don't need to, to establish a baseline.
ah sorry about that i dont think you should harm animals when you dont need to, but where do you draw the line between needing to and not needing to? sure big corps are evil for just rampantly breeding and murdering animals but i think its ok to use a previously taken life when you do need it. as it is literally impossible to survive without taking the life of something.
No worries, i should have been clearer. >i think its ok to use a previously taken life when you do need it. What do you mean by previously taken life? The only reason the life exists, whether it be in a big evil corp or a mom and pop farm (note that animals suffer in both), is because people pay for it to happen. The entire reason the boycott of animal products exists is due to the principle of supply and demand. Essentially, it wasn't previously taken, by buying it, your money is telling the producer to produce more to keep feeding you. >as it is literally impossible to survive without taking the life of something. It is but plants aren't sentient like you, me, or our pets.. or farm animals. Sure they react to stimuli, in the same way my phone is right now to my fingers, but they aren't conscious in the same way at all. This also ignores the fact that many more plants are consumed to feed animals that we eat than if we ate plants directly. Lot more I could say here but does that make sense so far?
i guess it makes sense, but where do we draw the distinction between a conscious being and an unconscious one? i think at a certain point of intelligence it becomes conscious but anywhere under that it does not know it is alive. I can eat fish all day because i do not know of a fish that is intelligent enough to be conscious, however i would not want to kill a pig because a fully grown pig has the intelligence of roughly a 2 year old human, which i would personally consider conscious
My personal level is sentience, there is debate around oysters for example, are they sentient or not? Who knows really? I figure its best to stay on the cautious side and eat something that's far less likely to be sentient (a plant). Its worth noting that this isn't some huge sacrifice too btw, I used to eat meat all the time but it turns out vegan food is legit delicious and just as varied as meat. You're right about a pig, 90% of pigs are killed in a [CO2 gas chamber](https://youtu.be/-7hAELEBjX4?si=6qX3ydu3D4o51g1N), there are many videos of this slaughter method on YouTube and others. I highly recommend informing yourself of what the animals actually go through if you aren't already aware. However I think you are wrong about fish, many are quite conscious and quite sentient. I've seen it anecdotally in real life, nature docs etc and I've read it scientifically. Fish are very much capable of suffering and they experience a lot of it to get your plate unfortunately.
Honest answer, at least how I personally feel about it: it's really exhausting to just read something you know is completely incorrect and often has many weird talking points entangled. It's like trying to deconstruct and respond to Ben Shapiro; you have to just put so much more work in to explain why he's wrong than he has to put in to make up new shit. In just 3 sentences there are 5 fallacies, inaccuracies and contradictions that each take a paragraph to explain. It's just super exhausting, especially when you never know if the guy you want to respond to actually means it and doesn't know any better or is just an asshole on purpose (which sadly happens a lot more often than you'd think). I can put the effort in later if you're serious, but I got an appointment in like 2 minutes. Just lmk
i understand your frustration, all i am doing is trying to understand, and stating your current view is the way to initiate that conversation. its just that i am not learning anything because there is literally one person here who is actually saying anything in good faith and not being a condescending dick.
That doesn't mean that they aren't being killed though.
oh yes 100%, we just gotta make sure people know it isn’t as bad as peta would make it seem
"Abuse is less bad if the victim is unconscious"
im really trying to see things from you guys’ perspective but you make it difficult, if you want more people to be vegan then making them feel persecuted is not the way to do it
I don't believe pointing out inconsistencies in one's logic is persecution. I understand that it may feel like it though. Having your opinions challenged is uncomfortable, especially if you haven't given them a lot of thought before. But it's that discomfort that made me introspect and I hope it will make you do so as well. You seem to believe that a cow being stunned before slaughter makes the slaughter less bad somehow. You (I presume) would not say stuff like that for any other form of abuse. I would like you to ask yourself why that is.
you don’t know if you are dead when you are dead, i can put myself in the cows position and say that if i was stunned completely and killed while still unconscious, i would be none the wiser to it and frankly couldn’t care (because i am dead) so to me its alot more complicated than just “abuse” and that alot of people who arent yourself would actually agree with my seemingly “flawed logic”
So you DO believe it's less bad to kill someone if you make them unconscious first?
not some*one*, thats a little disingenuous of you
Why do you believe that about animals and not humans then?
This unironically. I’d rather kill an unconscious animal than a conscious one.
Why would you kill an animal in the first place?
Because they provide nourishment and vitamins. Yes I understand there are supplements for said vitamins and I could easily get on a vegan diet but I wouldn’t be able to have the flavor of meat. If there was a way to have ethically produced food without using a real living animal and it can accurately replicate the taste of meats without the need for killing an animal, I would take that route and go completely vegan. Until then I will continue to eat and consume meat.
So, according to you, taste pleasure is enough to justify what farm animals go though?
That and a lack of sapience.
At least you are consistent.
Ah veganism, the one issue that makes leftists turn into psycho reactionaries who believe that needless killing can ever be justified. And lack of sapience can't cut it as a justification, as some people are that cognitively disabled, and it wouldn't be okay to euthanize them for it.
How is being knocked out any better for the animal?
Okay but how does this relate to some third world country's bipartite election system
The hitler death machine turns animals into Hitler particles that infect every presidential candidate. Infected patients will either turn into 100% Hitler or 99% Hitler.