this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2023
1471 points (92.1% liked)
Memes
44953 readers
1713 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Oh boy, another dogshit kill animals hehe meme. Very funny maymay community. Psuedoprogressive animal abusers the lot of ya. There is not enough resources on Earth to quench your never ending demand for bodies. Just have ten trillion kids who all definitely have the opportunity to eat just as many animals as you do! Primitive zero brain cell fools. I'd throw you all out of Athens.
internet is filled with echo chambers who cant make ethical decisions of their own. veganism gets downvoted because it makes people question their morality & they have to make the effort of buying plant-based options. god forbid they eat food without cholesterol
There are plant foods with cholesterol. Palm oils and coconut oils will contain them fir example.
More than half of America lives paycheck to paycheck. Vegan options are more expensive. Until you fix the economic crisis and solve poverty you really can't enforce veganism.
This isn't even getting into the fact that vegan options are literally nonexistent in many places.
Oh but you don't care about that because you only care about veganism because it allows you to feel morally superior to others.
Veganism gets downvoted for the same reason any other fanaticism gets downvoted: the vocal minority that talks about it does so with a hoiler-than-thou attitude, much like you are doing right now.
The people who want me to stop punching nonconsenting people in the face unprovoked sure are smug about not punching nonconsenting people in the face unprovoked. They should stop telling me what to do. Live and let live. I am very intelligent. An enlightened centrist you might say! ☝️🤓
That's a false equivalence.
The vast majority of the Western world does not consider farm animals to have the same rights as humans or pets. Equating the ethics of eating meat and battery is really reaching for an example to make me look stupid.
But hey, if we're playing that game, here's some examples that demonstrate unnecessary and annoying proselytizing:
On the basis of their being conscious feeling thinking emotional beings I assert that there is no moral difference between violating the bodily autonomy of a non-human animal and a human. Given a no alternative hypothetical it's fair to give preference for who to spare, but this is not the same as willful unnecessary violence and killing.
If it's false equivalency, demonstrate why it is permissible to kill non humans but not even permissible to punch humans in the face. What is the morally relevant difference? If you could apply that difference to a human, would you then justify doing to them all the things we do to animals?
Your examples don't have victims, this one does.
See but you're assuming that we agree to your axiomatic premise that there is no moral difference between the two.
We reject your premise. Prove there's no difference.
You don't think animals are conscious? Or do you not care that they are conscious?
From the perspective of cultural relativism.*
Insofar as our laws view animals, we do not afford them the same considerations or rights as we do our own species. I can't speak for Europe, but in the legal systems of North American countries, animals are granted their own distinct protections separate from the protections given to entities with the designation of personhood (i.e. humans or service animals).
For instance, with permits and barring species that are protected for conservation reasons, humans are allowed to hunt and kill animals for both sport and sustenance. In such cases, animals do not consent to their hunting.
However, that does not mean that it is okay to hurt animals without cause. There are animal cruelty laws that cover unjustified and inhumane treatment of wild and pet animals.
If it is legal to kill animals but illegal to be "cruel" to them, then the act of killing an animal is not, in itself, cruelty. If it was, then animal cruelty would unconditionally occur during the process of hunting, making the latter illegal.
With these four points, and keeping in mind that laws are a reflection of the collective beliefs of society, we see that:
By (1) and that punching a human in the face is an act of harming them (and also illegal), I conclude that it is not morally permissible to punch humans in the face.
By (2) and (4), I conclude that it is morally permissible to kill non-human animals.
Just in case anyone thinks relativism is a cop-out answer because laws were written in the past and may not be reflective of society's current moral views, I ask you to consider this:
Laws are constantly changed to align with updated beliefs. Canada amended its laws to consider gender identity a protected class, which reflects the contemporary belief that transgender individuals deserve equality and freedom from being discriminated against. If society cared about not killing animals, hunting for sport would be unconditionally outlawed.
Edit 1: I meant cultural relativism. Non-Western cultures have different (and in some cases, more progressive) views on animal rights.
Foundationally we already disagree, as I'm a moral objectivist. To assert moral subjectivity is to assert that moral progress does not exist. But with your edit your argument is actually now even worse IMO, because instead of focusing on a moral relativist position you're now basically saying morality=culture/law. i.e., since you have no say in what another society does without disrupting their agreed practice, all their actions are permissible. Bigotry is permissible. Slavery is permissible, hangings are permissible, genocide is permissible, etc, just so long as it simultaneously does not occur within proximity to you and rejects your preference. I think you are tolerant of intolerance.
Moral objectivism is pretty much the argument that inevitably always ends with an authoritarian regime to "eliminate" the "unethical" people from society. Germany first, and all that.
So if i want an external society to stop genociding for abritrary reasons, and I encourage my society to openly condemn it – even consider physical intervention where no alternative works, I'm the nazi? Did America do a nazi when they invaded Germany to end Hitler's expansion/regime?
I don't think we're coming to any sort of agreement here.
You believe there's a universal set of morals, and I believe individuals' morals are determined by environment (time, place, morals of others around the individual, etc.) and ultimately come together to form a collective understanding of morality for that point in time and those within that cultural environment.
That aside, concluding that I'm "tolerant of intolerance" is both disingenuous and incorrect. I believe that culture dictates morality, and I respect that other cultures are allowed to have their beliefs, but that doesn't mean I choose to agree with them. I don't consider any of your examples permissible under my own moral code.
I also accept that I am not the universal standard, and that it would be hypocritical to impose my own beliefs on demographics with a different moral code. To override the moral autonomy of others^1^ in a crusade for moral righteousness would be an unjust act in itself. Or in layman's idiom, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."
^1^ Others, plural. Not individuals who are exceptional to the moral concensus of their surroundings (i.e. murderers)
I believe we seek to arrive at universal morals. When we discuss atrocities, I don't see any reason to frame concerns for the well-being of others as personal preference. Their well-being is outside myself. The concern is for their own sake, not mine. I think you're in contradiction because you are once again saying you don't get to override the moral autonomy of others but simultaneously concede that you oppose atrocities that the moral autonomy of others permit. If I had the option to stop another society (where the majority of that society are in agreement on the action) from engaging in arbitrary genocide of their own citizens, I'd do that. The idea that you would find my action to stop them less permissible than their own tells me you lack conviction for your own values.
Correct. I, and nobody else, should be permitted to override the moral autonomy of others. Atrocities have already been performed under the line of reasoning that the persecutors' beliefs are objectivity superior to those that they are persecuting, and this is not something that we should aspire to repeat in the current day. Two moral wrongs—persecuting those that are persecuting others—does not make a moral right.
If the goal in your hypothetical scenario were solely to provide refuge and safe haven for willing members of said society, then I would have no problem with that. You would not be overriding moral beliefs; refugees would simply be voluntarily defecting from their own.
If your goal is to stop the genocide by destabilizing the society and installing your own set of moral beliefs in its place, then it would no longer be permissible.
Well homie I appreciate the bullet bite but I don't know how to fix you - you not only feel no need to endorse the ending of genocide - even for the marginalized in societies outside your own, you actively discourage and look down upon interfering with genocide. I don't know if you have the capacity to engage as a member of society, and frankly you may be a danger to it. Maybe you get the boot out of Athens 😵💫
We can agree to disagree on our differing views of morality, I guess.
With regards to genocide, it's a tough topic. We both agree that it's wrong, but we don't agree on how to approach it. I come from the perspective that there isn't a baseline for morality and that it's amoral to foist a subjective standard on others. You come from the perspective that there exists a universal standard for morality, and that it is amoral to allow societies to deviate from it.
Two diametrically opposed viewpoints that can't be reconciled at this point in time. Maybe, in the future, if we have a unified global "culture" and moral relativism and cultural relativism are indistinguishable, we might be able to come to some agreement. Until then, you do you, and I do me.
I'm a moral objectivist, I literally won't do that 🤣
Good point, lol. I'll agree to disagree, and you keep doing you 🤣
You're not going to change any minds by shutting on the people you're proselytizing to.
Give it a few more years until lab-grown meat is cheaper than live animals, and then recommend that as an alternative. People are more motivated by money than ethics.
Habits are hard to break, and the other person needs to have an incentive to stop eating meat and/or animal products. Much like New Years Resolutions, those "I'm thinking of" thoughts are just going to be dropped because there's no tangible motivation to follow through with them.
You can try convincing people by teaching them the health benefits from avoiding red meats, but realistically, you're not going to get far. There's a lot of misinformation and outdated research on the viability of vegetarian and vegan diets, and it's hard to change somebody's mind when they feel like it might be unhealthy.
This is why I'm hopeful for lab-grown meat being cheaper than actual meat. You're going to have the "GMO science evil" crowd that can't be helped, but the average consumer would gladly trade their ground beef for an equivalent-tasting alternative that saves them money. It's not vegetarian or vegan, but it solves the ethical issue of factory farming.
If you don't believe you're going to change anyone's mind what are you doing except virtue signalling?
Cuz they take it personally and then proceed to project onto you.
pulses, whole grains and vegetables are cheaper than flesh and secretions of animals
Cheap lab grown meat is not "a few years" out. Furthermore, this is like saying you shouldn't berate people for owning slaves because they are just waiting for robots to come along that can fulfill the same tasks. Even if some magical x factor will cause everyone to be vegan two years from now that would not excuse the conditions we subject animals to in the present.
Just a terrible attempt at trolling.
Yeah dude idk how to tell you this but some people actually do have an interest in a sustainable planet and individual's bodily autonomy. Idc if these are foreign ideas to you. OP's post itself is the trolling. If y'all don't want reactionary responses, dont troll this shit to the top post for the last six hours. You've all demonstrated very clearly how little you care about anything outside of your own momentary pleasure.
You are as pathetic as your trolling attempts. Please shut up.
Edit: fuck it, I realise that engaging you. Just gonna block you and move on. Have a nice day.
"please shut up!"
-the response of a child when faced with a situation that makes them uncomfortable
Two can play this game:
"Shut up" is also the sensible answer of adults when Christian zealots, nationalists and racists soapbox their shit.
Animal abuser
Thousands of animals are killed in every field of vegetables. Rodents, birds, insects. It’s a fucking bloodbath. Don’t pretend you are innocent.
Zero sum game that requires my own death to achieve - seems a reasonable request compared to a request to not participate in the forcible birthing of billions of animals into exploitative confinement until they are killed at our convenience for eternity, or the unecessary trawling of trillions of them.
Or we can seek to achieve what is possible, and work out what isn't over time. You describe a technical problem. That aside can you even empirically prove that more animals die in agricultural fields than in nature? I'm all in favor of reducing those deaths but is it actually any worse than if we let the existing fields reforest? I don't see your point as analogous to my own concerns.
No one is. A lot of people who are preferring a plant based diet due to moral reasons are well aware of such "roadkill".
Thing is, we're not breeding them into existence. These deaths are accidental and if there were a technical solution to the problem everyone would be in favour of that. In the animal industry on the other hand everything is intentional. Both, the scale and the moral intentions are a completely different world there.
So, from the moral stand point of veganism: is it bad to kill animals? Yes. Is it worse to kill animals intentionally on an industrial scale, which could be prevented, than accidentally on a much smaller scale during plant farming where it currently can not be prevented? Absolutely, yes.
And 1.3 million people are killed by cars every year. It's a fucking bloodbath. So driving a car is similar to intentionally murdering people, of course. Don't pretend you are innocent if you drive a car.
No. That’s not what I was saying. I’m saying that when a cow dies it’s one death. When a field of the same volume in terms of nutrition is harvested it’s many deaths.
Beef is worse in the long run for the water and energy use, but not in terms of slaughter.
OP's post itself is bait. Funny haha gif does not address the victims at all.